Category: republicans

  • There is an unmistakable shift in American politics regarding Palestine and Israel, a change that is inspired by the way in which many Americans, especially the youth, view the Palestinian struggle and the Israeli occupation. While this shift is yet to translate into tangibly diminishing Israel’s stronghold over the US Congress, it promises to be of great consequence in the coming years.

    Recent events at the US House of Representatives clearly demonstrate this unprecedented reality. On September 21, Democratic lawmakers successfully rejected a caveat that proposes to give Israel $1 billion in military funding as part of a broader spending bill, after objections from several progressive Congress members. The money was specifically destined to fund the purchase of new batteries and interceptors for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system.

    Two days later, the funding of the Iron Dome was reintroduced and, this time, it has successfully, and overwhelmingly, passed with a vote of 420 to 9, despite passionate pleas by Palestinian-American Representative, Rashida Tlaib.

    In the second vote, only eight Democrats opposed the measure. The ninth opposing vote was cast by a member of the Republican party, Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

    Though she was one of the voices that blocked the funding measure on September 21, Democratic Representative, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, switched her vote at the very last minute to “present”, creating confusion and generating anger among her supporters.

    As for Massie, his defiance of the Republican consensus generated him the title of “Antisemite of the Week” by a notorious pro-Israel organization called ‘Stop Antisemitism’.

    Despite the outcome of the tussle, the fact that such an episode has even taken place in Congress was a historic event requiring much reflection. It means that speaking out against the Israeli occupation of Palestine is no longer taboo among elected US politicians.

    Once upon a time, speaking out against Israel in Congress generated a massive and well-organized backlash from the pro-Israeli lobby, especially the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that, in the past, ended promising political careers, even those of veteran politicians. A combination of media smear tactics, support of rivals and outright threats often sealed the fate of the few dissenting Congress members.

    While AIPAC and its sister organizations continue to follow the same old tactic, the overall strategy is hardly as effective as it once was. Members of the Squad, young Representatives who often speak out against Israel and in support of Palestine, were introduced to the 2019 Congress. With a few exceptions, they remained largely consistent in their position in support of Palestinian rights and, despite intense efforts by the Israeli lobby, they were all reelected in 2020. The historic lesson here is that being critical of Israel in the US Congress is no longer a guarantor of a decisive electoral defeat; on the contrary, in some instances, it is quite the opposite.

    The fact that 420 members of the House voted to provide Israel with additional funds – to be added to the annual funds of $3.8 billion – reflects the same unfortunate reality of old, that, thanks to the relentless biased corporate media coverage, most American constituencies continue to support Israel.

    However, the loosening grip of the lobby over the US Congress offers unique opportunities for the pro-Palestinian constituencies to finally place pressure on their Representatives, demanding accountability and balance. These opportunities are not only created by new, youthful voices in America’s democratic institutions, but by the rapidly shifting public opinion, as well.

    For decades, the vast majority of Americans supported Israel. The reasons behind this support varied, depending on the political framing as communicated by US officials and media. Prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example, Tel Aviv was viewed as a stalwart ally of Washington against Communism. In later years, new narratives were fabricated to maintain Israel’s positive image in the eyes of ordinary Americans. The US so-called ‘war on terror’, declared in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, for example, positioned Israel as an American ally against ‘Islamic extremism’, painting resisting Palestinians as ‘terrorists’, thus giving the Israeli occupation of Palestine a moral facade.

    However, new factors have destabilized this paradigm. One is the fact that support for Israel has become a divisive issue in the US’ increasingly tumultuous and combative politics, where most Republicans support Israel and most Democrats don’t.

    Moreover, as racial justice has grown to become one of the most defining and emotive subjects in American politics, many Americans began seeing the Palestinian struggle against the Israeli occupation from the prism of millions of Americans’ own fight for racial equality. The fact that the social media hashtag #PalestinianLivesMatter continues to trend daily alongside the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter speaks of a success story where communal solidarity and intersectionality have prevailed over selfish politics, where only money matters.

    Millions of young Americans now see the struggle in Palestine as integral to the anti-racist fight in America; no amount of pro-Israeli lobbying in Congress can possibly shift this unmistakable trend. There are plenty of numbers that attest to these claims. One of many examples is the University of Maryland’s public opinion poll in July, which showed that more than half of polled Americans disapproved of President Joe Biden’s handling of the Israeli war on Gaza in May 2021, believing that he could have done more to stop the Israeli aggression.

    Of course, courageous US politicians dared to speak out against Israel in the past. However, there is a marked difference between previous generations and the current one. In American politics today, there are politicians who are elected because of their strong stance for Palestine and, by deviating from their election promises, they risk the ire of the growing pro-Palestine constituency throughout the country. This changing reality is finally making it possible to nurture and sustain pro-Palestinian presence in US Congress.

    In other words, speaking out for Palestine in America is no longer a charitable and rare occurrence. As the future will surely reveal, it is the “politically correct” thing to do.

    The post Racial Justice Vs. The Israel Lobby: When Being Pro-Palestine Becomes the New Normal   first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell addresses reporters following a weekly Republican policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on October 5, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Senate Republicans will allow a vote on raising the debt ceiling, averting a crisis that would have seen the United States government defaulting on its debt obligations for the first time in its history.

    Although Republicans have blocked every effort to raise the debt ceiling since last month — and though much of the debt was incurred due to deficit spending under former President Donald Trump — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Kentucky) statement announcing his party’s decision to agree to raise the debt ceiling sought to blame Democrats for the crisis.

    “To protect the American people from a near-term Democrat-created crisis, we will also allow Democrats to use normal procedures to pass an emergency debt limit extension at a fixed dollar amount to cover current spending levels into December,” McConnell said.

    Had the debt ceiling not been raised by a mid-October deadline, the U.S. government would have defaulted on its debts, which economists have warned would likely result in a recession.

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen expressed similar concerns about the economy, saying in an interview on CNBC on Tuesday that it would be “catastrophic to not pay the government’s bills, for us to be in a position where we lacked the resources to pay the government’s bills.”

    “I fully expect it would cause a recession as well,” Yellen added.

    The deal, if agreed upon by Democratic lawmakers, would end the standoff to raise the debt ceiling that has spanned the past month. But the victory would only last a couple of months, and the debate surrounding raising the debt ceiling would resume in December.

    McConnell’s announcement came after his previous offer to expedite the reconciliation process as means of staving off the debt crisis. But according to CNN’s Manu Raju, the Senate Minority Leader’s shift was inspired in part by Democrats’ threat to change filibuster rules in order to raise the debt ceiling, as well as pressure placed on centrist Democrats to acquiesce.

    “McConnell told his colleagues he’s concerned about pressure on [West Virginia Sen. Joe] Manchin and [Arizona Sen. Kyrsten] Sinema to gut filibuster in order to raise debt ceiling, I’m told,” Raju wrote in a tweet.

    Although Manchin said earlier on Wednesday that he was opposed to removing the Senate filibuster as a strategy to raise the debt limit, President Joe Biden endorsed a plan to do so, telling reporters yesterday that there was a “real possibility” of that taking place.

    The debate around ending the filibuster to raise the debt limit may come up when the debt ceiling is brought up again in December. It’s also possible that Democrats may try to end the need for Congress to raise the debt ceiling at all, and instead advocate for the action to be automatic.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Ted Cruz speaks during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on September 14, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    As Democrats scramble to raise the debt ceiling before the U.S. defaults, Republicans like Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) have been misleading the public about who incurred the debts in the first place. More and more transparently, the GOP is revealing that their goal is to cause financial disaster — and to blame it on Democrats.

    Republicans are planning to block yet another Democratic attempt to raise the debt ceiling on Wednesday. Over the past few weeks, they’ve left Democrats with few options for avoiding a default, which has led President Joe Biden to suggest that his party’s leaders carve out a filibuster exception just for the debt limit.

    Even though a debt default could spell financial chaos for the country, potentially sapping trillions of dollars of household wealth from American families, Republicans have refused to budge — and even though the debts that need to be paid were incurred during the Trump administration, they are claiming the debt is the Democrats’ fault for wanting to pass their widely popular social and climate spending plan.

    “They basically want us to be aiders and abettors to their reckless spending and tax policies, and we just aren’t going to do it,” Cornyn told The Washington Post this week.

    The debt ceiling has nothing to do with the Democratic agenda and everything to do with Donald Trump’s policies — particularly the 2017 tax reform plan, in which Republicans gifted massive tax breaks to corporations and the rich with no plan to fill in the deficit that would create. Trump built up nearly $8 trillion in debt over just four years, which economists say will take years to pay off.

    Cruz also lied about the Democrats’ responsibility for the debt last month on Fox, claiming that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) “doesn’t want to raise the debt ceiling using Democrats because he wants to rack up trillions in new spending, trillions in new taxes, and he wants to shift political blame…. He wants to get 10 Republicans to vote for the Democrats’ massively irresponsible spending,” in order to bypass the filibuster on the debt ceiling. The Texas senator has been dead set on blocking attempts to raise the debt ceiling over the past few weeks, hinging his opposition on this misleading claim.

    The debt ceiling raise has nothing to do with the Democrats’ reconciliation bill, which is fully funded by moderate tax increases on corporations and the wealthy. However, the GOP is trying its hardest to tie the two things together.

    Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and other Republican lawmakers have been demanding that Democrats raise the debt ceiling through the reconciliation bill, in aims of weakening or sinking the reconciliation bill altogether. Democrats have refused to pass the debt ceiling through reconciliation, saying that it would take too long to avoid a default and that there are other options for resolving the issue.

    Republicans have yet to stray from this strategy, even as the default date grows closer– and they’ve shown callous indifference to the fact that their obstruction has the potential to spell economic disaster. If a debt default happens because of their demands, “then too bad,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota) told The Washington Post. “It’s just really, really unfortunate that [Democrats are] that irresponsible.”

    The GOP is also reluctant to support a filibuster carveout for the debt ceiling. McConnell said that he “can’t imagine” doing that if he were in charge. After Biden suggested the filibuster carveout on Wednesday, McConnell told Senate Republicans that he is planning to offer a temporary debt ceiling extension or an expedited reconciliation process instead.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Joe Biden addresses the media after a meeting of the House Democratic Caucus on the infrastructure bill in the U.S. Capitol on October 1, 2021.

    On Monday, President Joe Biden slammed Republicans for obstructing attempts to prevent the financial disaster that would be caused by a U.S. debt default, calling their interference “disgraceful.” For weeks, Republicans have been insistent on causing a default by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

    “Let’s be clear. Not only are Republicans refusing to do their job, but they’re threatening to use their power to prevent us from doing our job, saving the economy from a catastrophic event. I think quite frankly it’s hypocritical, dangerous and disgraceful,” said Biden. “Their obstruction and irresponsibility knows absolutely no bounds, especially as we’re clawing our way out of this pandemic.”

    Pointing out that Republican senators have been threatening to use the filibuster to block the debt ceiling raise, he urged GOP lawmakers to “get out of the way” if they want Democrats to fix the problem themselves. Yet Republicans are willfully obstructing nearly every path that Democrats could take to raise the debt ceiling with Democratic votes alone.

    Biden pointed out that it isn’t about his current agenda, but about paying off existing debts. “Raising the debt limit comes down to paying what we already owe,” he said. “It starts with a simple truth: the United States is a nation that has paid its bills and always has.”

    The president continued to say that previous debt limit raises have been a bipartisan effort because both parties recognized the importance of the U.S. paying its debts. “The reason we have to raise the debt limit is in part because of the reckless tax and spending policies under the previous [Donald] Trump administration. In four years, they incurred nearly $8 trillion — in four years, $8 trillion in additional debt,” he said. “That’s more than a quarter of the entire debt incurred now outstanding after more than 200 years.”

    Over the course of Trump’s presidency, Republicans voted to raise the debt limit three times. Now, the U.S. faces a crisis if the debt limit isn’t raised before the U.S. runs out of money to pay for its obligations, which Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen says could come in just two weeks. Every day until the debt limit is raised, the so-called “X date” — the day the U.S. could default — grows closer.

    Economists warn that if Congress remains in deadlock and the U.S. defaults on its debts, the resulting economic downturn could be catastrophic, similar to that of the Great Recession in 2008. According to analysis by Moody’s Analytics, six million jobs could be lost and American families could have $15 trillion of their collective wealth yanked out from under them.

    The longer Republicans block Democrats from raising the debt ceiling leading up to a default, the more unstable the economy gets, Biden pointed out. Last week, investors began preparing for the possibility of a default, resulting in a market plunge.

    “As soon as this week, your savings and your pocketbook could be directly impacted by this Republican stunt,” the president said. “Republicans say they will not do their part to avoid this needless calamity. So be it. But they need to stop playing Russian roulette with the U.S. economy.”

    Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has only doubled down on his party’s debt limit obstruction in recent days, even as the economy roils due to the possibility of a debt default.

    In a bizarre letter to Biden on Monday, he requested that the president ask Democrats to avoid a debt default. The minority leader continues to pin the blame on Democrats — even though he could change his mind about obstructing raising the debt limit at any time, preventing what could become a dire economic crisis.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • By Jason Lemon 

    Fox News anchor Chris Wallace confronted Senator John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, over his support for expanding child tax credits under former President Donald Trump while he now opposes Democrats’ efforts that would expand them even further under President Joe Biden.

    The 2017 Republican tax cuts doubled the existing child tax credits. Democrats then temporarily increased child tax credits further under the American Rescue Plan approved in March, and began sending out the payments monthly. Through the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation proposal, these increased tax credits would be extended.

    While Barrasso supported the child tax credits as part of Trump’s signature tax cut legislation, the GOP senator now opposes the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill that would improve them further. Wallace pressed Barrasso on the issue during a Sunday interview on Fox News Sunday.

    “As part of the Trump tax cuts in 2017, you voted to increase the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000. Now, as part of this bill, the Democrats would extend that to 2025 at a higher level,” Wallace explained. “And the fact is that your state of Wyoming is one of the states that benefits most from the increase in the child tax credit. Why oppose that?”

    Barrasso responded by pointing to his concerns about the broader $3.5 trillion package. The Wyoming Republican called it “a massive bill.”

    Wallace then interjected. “Forgive me sir, but I’m asking about this specific part of the bill. I understand there are parts that you don’t like. For instance—I guess part of the question is, could you have worked with them on this child tax credit? Which you voted for in 2017, that’s one of the things that you’re voting against now. Why oppose that specific program?”

    The GOP senator said that lawmakers have to “look at the entire bill and say if you’re for the bill or you’re not.” The Wyoming lawmaker went on to complain that Democratic lawmakers have not been “coming to talk to Republicans on any of these things.”

    Later in the interview, Wallace pressed Barrasso over the provision to expanded childcare and fund universal pre-kindergarten through the $3.5 trillion reconciliation package: “In the state of Wyoming, less than a quarter of children [ages] three to four, which is who would be covered in the bill, are enrolled in publicly funded preschool—less than a quarter. Wouldn’t a lot of Wyoming families benefit from universal pre-k?”

    Barrasso admitted that “there are a number of things that will help the people of Wyoming” in the bill. But he insisted that “overall, Joe Biden’s policies have been hurting the people of Wyoming.”

    Newsweek reached out to Barrasso’s press representatives for further comment but did not immediately receive a response.

    The $3.5 trillion reconciliation package proposed by the White House and Democratic leaders would provide funding for universal pre-kindergarten, extend the popular child tax credits, make two years of community college free for all Americans, expand medicare access, work to lower the cost of prescriptions drugs and address climate change, among other priorities. But Republicans in Congress unanimously oppose the Democratic legislation.

    Democrats turned to the budget reconciliation process when it became apparent that they would not receive any GOP support for the bill. Due to the Senate‘s legislative filibuster rule, most legislation requires at least 60 votes to pass in the upper chamber of Congress. With an evenly split Senate—50 to 50—Democrats turned to the budget reconciliation process, which allows for passage with a slim majority. Vice President Kamala Harris, the president of the Senate, can cast the final decision on tied votes.

    But moderate Democratic Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia have expressed opposition to the high price tag of the reconciliation bill—leaving its passage in doubt. Manchin said last week that he’d be supportive of a substantially smaller $1.5 trillion reconciliation bill and President Joe Biden later reportedly told lawmakers that the final package may be closer to $1.9 trillion or $2.2 trillion.

    Original article: https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-host-confronts-gop-senator-backing-child-tax-credit-under-trump-not-biden-1635107

    The post Fox News Host Confronts GOP Senator for Backing Child Tax Credit Under Trump But Not Biden appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • In the 1960s, young radicals saw the university as an ideal site for agitating and organizing. What changed?

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and President Joe Biden speak briefly to reporters as they arrive at the U.S. Capitol for a Senate Democratic luncheon on July 14, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    A number of new polls out this week seem to suggest good news for Democrats in the upcoming 2022 midterms — and troubling news for Republicans (particularly former President Donald Trump) when it comes to the next presidential election.

    Such numbers may not hold steady in the years or even months ahead. But having an understanding of what the data says now gives political parties and candidates for office a better sense of where things are going, and how to adjust strategy if necessary.

    For Democrats, things seem to be going in the right direction.

    In the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll published on Thursday, respondents were asked to share which political party they would most likely support if the 2022 midterm races were being held today. Democrats obtained a plurality of support, with 46 percent of registered voters saying they’d be more likely to back a candidate from that party for their congressional district races, versus just 38 percent who said they’d back a Republican candidate.

    While there’s still a little more than a year left before Election Day 2022, early polling is often indicative of the direction elections may be headed. In 2017, after an Economist/YouGov poll showed that voters preferred Democrats to Republicans by six points, Democrats went on to win the House elections by around eight points.

    It’s less clear what voters want when it comes to presidential elections. Biden has the approval of 45 percent of registered voters who participated in the poll, while 46 percent said they disapprove — figures that represent a statistical tie. His approval rating is up two points when compared to the poll’s findings earlier this month. During that time, his disapproval rating has diminished by five points.

    These numbers don’t indicate how Biden would perform in a 2024 presidential race if he decides to run for a second term. However, they do show that he would have a reasonable chance of winning, particularly if Trump, his rival in the 2020 race, decides to run again.

    Last month, polling from Quinnipiac University found that only 32 percent of respondents felt it would be a “good” thing if Trump ran again, while 60 percent said it would be “bad” for the country. Coupled with those results, the numbers from the NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll suggest that if Biden does run again, with Trump as his GOP opponent, he has a good shot at reelection.

    Of course, that’s assuming that Trump remains the frontrunner — and the eventual nominee — for the Republican Party. An additional poll that was released this week, conducted by the Super PAC run by Trump’s former National Security Advisor John Bolton, shows that the former president may be losing ground to another potential GOP candidate.

    Within that poll, 26.2 percent of respondents said that if the Republican primary for president in 2024 were held today they would back Trump, while 25.2 percent said they would support Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida. The poll has a 3.1 percent margin of error, which means that at the moment, the two potential candidates for president are tied within a hypothetical Republican primary.

    Despite DeSantis’s potential as a future GOP nominee, this doesn’t necessarily spell out good news for the Republican Party. Polling conducted in August shows that DeSantis is viewed unfavorably by 36 percent of the voting public, while only 29 percent see him in a positive light. 35 percent said they didn’t know enough about him to form an opinion.

    The numbers from all of these polls — from the congressional races to the presidency — are likely to fluctuate between now and when elections are held. But they do indicate the current trajectory of voters’ opinions of potential candidates, and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is seen during a senate vote in the U.S. Capitol on September 22, 2021.

    On Monday, Senate Republicans voted against raising the U.S.’s debt limit, rejecting a measure that would have avoided a government shutdown and provided billions for disaster aid and Afghan refugees. If Congress continues its deadlock, economists project that the looming shutdown and debt default could lead to an economic crash.

    Though some Republicans had considered voting for the debt limit raise to help the U.S. avoid a default, ultimately, they all aligned against the measure. If Democrats can’t work out a funding solution by Thursday, the government will shut down Friday morning in the midst of the pandemic. Economists warn that even a short shutdown could upend global markets, creating spiked interest rates on Treasury bonds in the long term.

    Further, if the U.S. defaults on its debts, a situation which Republicans have been threatening to create, the resulting economic downturn could be disastrous and even trigger a recession if left unchecked for long enough. Economists estimate that the “X date” — the day that the government would run out of funding and be forced to choose between defaulting on its debts or paying out crucial social programs — could come as early as mid-October.

    Even if a default never happens, the possibility of it happening could alarm markets just as the economy is making a nascent recovery from the pandemic. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has warned Democratic leaders that a default, which would be unprecedented, must be avoided.

    Democrats now have limited options when it comes to avoiding a shutdown. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) has said that putting the debt ceiling hike into the reconciliation bill, which can pass via a simple majority in the Senate, is a “non-starter.” Some sources say the process would take at least 10 days, and Durbin has claimed it could eat up weeks.

    Democrats could also present the debt ceiling as a standalone bill to avoid a shutdown, in which case Republicans would have to either support it or choose not to filibuster it, though both options are unlikely. Some experts say that the Biden administration could take steps to nullify the debt ceiling entirely — a nuclear option that some economic experts favor. Still, the options for Democrats are sparse, and with the uncertainty of the “X date,” the risk of defaulting grows closer each day.

    Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) is leading his caucus in playing political brinkmanship over the debt limit, at once saying that he opposes a debt default while still imploring Republicans to oppose the measure that would prevent one anyway.

    “It’s an unhinged position to take,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York). “There is no scenario in God’s green earth where it should be worth risking millions of jobs, trillions in household wealth, people’s Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits and another recession just to score short-term, meaningless political points.”

    Though there are few apparent and immediate benefits to McConnell’s dangerous debt limit threat — other than, perhaps, trying to block the reconciliation bill — former President Donald Trump noted that the GOP would be “foolish” to not use the debt ceiling as a tool to get ahead. “The only powerful tool that Republicans have to negotiate with is the Debt Ceiling, and they would be both foolish and unpatriotic not to use it now,” Trump said.

    On this, Trump isn’t entirely wrong — refusing to raise the debt ceiling gives Republicans the power to manipulate Democrats and spout whatever message they want about Democratic leadership, especially when it comes to policies that they describe as Democrats’ “tax-and-spend” agenda.

    But this game is potentially destructive, and political writers and lawmakers have noted that the recklessness on display by Republicans — just so they can hold more tools to attack Democrats — is both cynical and shameless.

    “It’s time to call the Republicans out over this: Are you kidding me on the debt ceiling?” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) on MSNBC last week. “What are we trying to raise the debt ceiling for now? To cover the debts that were incurred during the Trump administration. And the Republicans want to turn around and play political games with that? They want to threaten to blow up our entire economy — and actually, the world economy — over that?”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Election challengers demand to enter to observe the absentee ballots counting but were dined after the room reached capacity during the 2020 general election in Detroit, Michigan, on November 4, 2020.

    In Michigan on Friday, a top Republican National Committee (RNC) official informed Republican leaders of the party’s plan to continue destabilizing elections with lawsuits and other efforts in the upcoming midterm elections.

    As first reported by the Detroit Free Press, Josh Findlay, the election integrity director for the RNC, said that the GOP is planning to massively increase the use of poll watchers, who Republicans have been empowering through state-level bills. The party is also planning to majorly step up litigation efforts, like Donald Trump attempted to do in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

    At the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference in Michigan, Findlay said that the GOP failed in 2020 by not preparing litigation ahead of time. By the time Trump and his campaign filed lawsuits on Election Day, it was too late to affect the results, he said.

    Findlay also said that the GOP strategy of unleashing a flood of Republican poll watchers on ballot counting locations, like the party did in Detroit, caused chaos that was later used against them in court. But the GOP is readying itself for the next election: In 2022, “when we go into Election Day, we’ll know exactly what to look for,” he said.

    In a backlash to the 2020 election, Republicans have been working to expand the powers of partisan poll watchers and enact voter suppression laws across the country. Poll watchers sent on behalf of parties or candidates typically face strict rules on how close they can get to polling locations and what parts of the voting process they can observe or access.

    Bills by GOP legislators like one recently passed in Texas empower such partisan figures; the Texas law makes it a misdemeanor for an election official to reject a poll watcher and allows poll watchers to sue election officials who obstruct them. Though the law requires them to sign an oath to not harass voters, voting experts say that expanding partisan poll watchers’ access across the country could lead to harassment and intimidation.

    “It is telling that after the most secure and successful election in modern times, the GOP continues its attempt to undermine the rights of voters,” Sylvia Albert, Director of Voting and Elections at Common Cause, told Truthout. “The GOP has a long history of using poll watchers to intimidate voters, and now are attempting to protect this form of intimidation by tying the hands of election officials.”

    Poll watchers were an important strategy for Trump in 2020, with the then-president asking the Proud Boys, a far right extremist group, to “stand back and stand by.” He also encouraged people to “go into the polls and watch very carefully” during the election.

    The election lawsuits are another looming threat. Though Republicans lost all of the lawsuits they filed over the 2020 election, the GOP is making moves to take control of election boards and manipulate election laws that could help their chances. In Georgia, where Republicans recently passed a massive voter suppression bill, GOP lawmakers have been taking steps to take over the election board in Fulton County, where Atlanta is located.

    The RNC is working to appoint election integrity directors, Findlay said, and has already installed them in nine states. Others could be appointed soon ahead of the 2022 election. It’s unclear what these RNC officials would be doing, but it’s likely that they would be in tune with efforts to advance Republican voter suppression and election destabilization across the country.

    Voting rights advocates are filing lawsuit after lawsuit to combat overly partisan gerrymandering efforts, which Republicans disproportionately wield. But election experts and advocates say that lawsuits aren’t enough.

    “The optimal way to go is for Congress to pass HR1,” Marc Elias, an elections and voting rights lawyer and founder of Democracy Docket, told the Associated Press in May. “We turn to the courts not as our first choice but as our last.”

    Indeed, voting rights advocates have aligned themselves behind federal voting rights legislation, including H.R. 1, or the For the People Act, and more recently, the Freedom to Vote Act, a modified version of the Democrats’ marquee bill. But it faces Republican opposition and has exceedingly slim chances of passing the 60-vote filibuster rule in the Senate.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • An abortion rights activist holds a sign in support of Planned Parenthood at a rally at the Texas State Capitol on September 11, 2021 in Austin, Texas.

    While Republican lawmakers in several states are working to replicate an abortion ban recently enacted in Texas, healthcare providers and reproductive rights advocates on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider blocking the “patently unconstitutional” measure.

    “For 23 days, we’ve been forced to deny essential abortion care for the vast majority of patients who come to us,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health and Whole Woman’s Health Alliance, in a statement about the new request (pdf).

    “Most of those we’ve turned away told us they would not be able to make it out of Texas for care,” she said. “I don’t know what happened to these patients after they left our clinics, but I can’t stop thinking about them. Forcing our staff to tell patients ‘no’ day after day is cruel. This chaos must come to an end, and that is why we are going back to the Supreme Court today.”

    Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), also emphasized the urgent need for an intervention to ensure access to essential healthcare.

    “Planned Parenthood call centers have become crisis hotlines and health center staff have become crisis counselors,” said the PPFA leader, whose group is representing Texas healthcare providers, abortion funds, and other plaintiffs alongside the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), the Lawyering Project, the national ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, and Morrison & Foerster LLP.

    “For half a century, the Supreme Court has upheld the fundamental right to end a pregnancy. But for the past three weeks, five justices have shrugged their shoulders while Texas politicians do an end run around the Constitution and impose devastating harm on countless Texans, especially people of color,” said Julia Kaye, a staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “It is past time for the Supreme Court to step in and right this grave injustice.”

    The high court allowed Texas’ Senate Bill 8 to take effect earlier this month in a 5-4 ruling for which Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberals. Though some critics say that move effectively overturned Roe v. Wade — the 1973 case that affirmed the right to abortion — the justices did not consider the constitutionality of the ban in their decision.

    S.B. 8 not only bans abortion after six weeks — before many people know they are pregnant — without exceptions for rape or incest, it also empowers anti-choice vigilantes to enforce the law with the offer of a $10,000 “bounty,” which the U.S. Department of Justice has noted is part of an “unprecedented scheme” to make the law harder to challenge in court.

    Thursday’s filing points out that since the justices’ decision to refrain from blocking the law and let it move through the judicial system, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit Circuit has indicated that its position is “under circuit precedent, federal courts are powerless to preemptively block enforcement of a privately enforced state-law prohibition.”

    The filing further notes that “although the 5th Circuit expedited the appeal, it will not hold argument until December at the earliest,” and asserts quicker action is needed, given that S.B. 8 is already interfering with the healthcare and rights of Texans and residents of neighboring states, whose clinics have seen an increase in demand since the law took effect.

    As CRR president and CEO Nancy Northup put it: “We’re asking the Supreme Court for this expedited appeal because the 5th Circuit has done nothing to change the dire circumstances on the ground in Texas. We need this case to move as quickly as possible.”

    The filing highlights that “already, legislators in other states are taking notice and vowing to adopt copycat laws,” and says there is no “reason to think abortion is the only constitutional right that will be targeted,” echoing widespread warnings about other fundamental rights.

    HuffPost reported that House Bill 167, introduced Wednesday by Florida Rep. Webster Barnaby (R-27), would go even further than S.B. 8 — expanding the window of time in which lawsuits by private citizens could be brought against anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion beyond the six-week limit “from four years under the Texas law to six years in the Sunshine State.”

    At least two cases have already kicked off under Texas’ law; they both target Dr. Alan Braid, a longtime abortion provider in San Antonio who over the weekend publicly admitted to violating S.B. 8, in hopes that the disclosure would help overturn the state’s new ban.

    The threat to reproductive rights posed by the Texas law, copycat legislation, and an upcoming Supreme Court case — a challenge to a Mississippi abortion ban that experts warn could reverse Roe — have collectively elevated calls for the Democrat-controlled Congress to take action.

    Earlier this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelsoi (D-Calif.) announced the chamber will soon vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), legislation to codify Roe that is broadly backed by rights advocates.

    The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 60 other organizations on Thursday sent a letter to lawmakers detailing the devastating impacts of state-level attacks on abortion rights like S.B. 8 and urging them to pass WHPA (H.R. 3755/S. 1975).

    “The Women’s Health Protection Act is an important step in ending these harmful laws,” the groups argued, “and promoting the health, economic security, and well-being of those whom we have forced through law and policy to live at the margins.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Mitch McConnell

    If Republicans make good on their threats to allow the U.S. to default on loan payments after refusing to raise the debt ceiling, economists warn in no uncertain terms that a subsequent economic downturn could be disastrous and “cataclysmic” if Congress reaches a debt impasse.

    A new analysis by Moody’s Analytics found that if Republicans shoot down an attempt to raise the debt ceiling and lawmakers enter an extended period in which they can’t agree on how to avert a government shutdown, it could trigger economic conditions similar to the Great Recession in 2008.

    Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi and assistant director Bernard Yaros wrote that this scenario would lead to the loss of nearly 6 million jobs in the U.S. It would also cause unemployment to surge from about 5 percent to 9 percent and household wealth to plummet by $15 trillion. Even after the government reopened, it would have permanent consequences like spiking mortgage and other borrowing rates, they warn in the report.

    “This economic scenario is cataclysmic,” Yaros and Zandi said. “[T]he downturn would be comparable to that suffered during the financial crisis.”

    Even a short government shutdown could “upend” global markets and the economy, which is still fragile from the pandemic — and even if the debt default and shutdown are swiftly resolved, the resulting higher interest rates on Treasury bonds would still have lasting, generational effects, Yaros and Zandi wrote.

    The report’s authors are critical of the entire process to raise the debt limit. “The original intent of the debt limit was to be a forcing mechanism on lawmakers to remain fiscally disciplined. It has failed at this,” the report reads. “Instead, it has become highly disruptive to the fiscal process.”

    Currently, if lawmakers fail to raise the debt limit, the Treasury Department wouldn’t be able to pay debts. The agency would be forced to either default on the debts, which Moody’s estimates would come due around October 20, or pay the $20 billion it owes that day to Social Security recipients. If the shutdown continued further, the Treasury would be forced to make other similar decisions.

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has also warned of high stakes if the U.S. has to default, which she says would be unprecedented. “Doing so would likely precipitate a historic financial crisis that would compound the damage of the continuing public health emergency,” she wrote Sunday.

    The shutdown and default is an easily avoidable scenario in theory. Congress could simply come together and raise the debt ceiling, as it has done many times before, often under Republican leadership. In fact, under Donald Trump, Republicans added nearly $8 trillion to the national debt, the third largest addition to the national debt of any president.

    However, now that a Democrat is in charge, Republicans have transformed back into deficit hawks. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) is saying that he opposes allowing the U.S. to default, but is aligning Republicans to refuse to vote to raise the debt ceiling — which is essentially voting to allow the U.S. to default.

    Bizarrely, McConnell pins the blame for this on Democrats. But Democrats, who have not indicated that they want a default to happen, have been scrambling to prevent that scenario. Only the GOP has said that they will vote to allow a default.

    “McConnell seemingly could not care less” about creating financial chaos, wrote Truthout’s William Rivers Pitt. “His interest appears entirely political and utterly without shame: He wants his people to go into the 2022 midterms with ‘tax-and-spend liberals’ on every tongue. The same Republicans who aided the Trump administration’s wild financial giveaways to corporations and the wealthy now intend to use the economy itself against President Biden’s legislative attempt to address climate change and expand the social safety net, and all as a means of regaining the majority.”

    If Republicans follow through with this plan, it would not be their first time throwing the country into financial chaos for political gain and obstruction. Under President Barack Obama, they caused major fights over the debt limit in 2011 and again in 2013, which created long-term negative consequences for the economy, the report’s authors noted.

    “[T]he heightened uncertainty at the time reduced business investment and hiring and weighed heavily on GDP growth. If not for this uncertainty, by mid-2015, real GDP would have been $180 billion, or more than 1%, higher; there would have been 1.2 million more jobs; and the unemployment rate would have been 0.7 percentage point lower,” wrote Yaros and Zandi. “That is, if not for the political logjams in Washington over the debt limit after the financial crisis, the post-crisis economic recovery would have been meaningfully stronger.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Adam Laxalt

    Nevada Senate candidate Adam Laxalt, a Republican with a well-known name in the Silver State, is already stoking fears of voter fraud and vowing to file lawsuits to “try to tighten up the election” — 14 months before any actual votes are cast.

    Republican candidates around the country have ripped a page from Donald Trump’s playbook, launching spurious claims of fraud about elections that haven’t happened yet, in an apparent effort to blame potential defeats on unspecified and evidence-free claims of “irregularities.” California Republican Larry Elder, who hoped to be elected governor after the recent recall election targeting Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, launched a website claiming voter fraud days before votes were even counted. (In the event, the vote against the recall was so overwhelming Elder has stopped talking about it.) But Laxalt, who was endorsed by Trump after filing multiple lawsuits contesting Joe Biden’s narrow 2020 victory in Nevada, is breaking new ground by making such claims more than a year before a single vote is cast.

    “With me at the top of the ticket, we’re going to be able to get everybody at the table and come up with a full plan, do our best to try to secure this election, get as many observers as we can, and file lawsuits early, if there are lawsuits we can file to try to tighten up the election,” Laxalt told radio host Wayne Allyn Root in an interview last month after Root claimed that “Trump won Nevada” and said the election had been “stolen.” The comments were first flagged by Jon Ralston, editor of the Nevada Independent, and later reported by the Associated Press.

    The comments set off alarm among some Nevada Republicans, according to Ralston, who drew a comparison to failed 2010 U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle. Angle held an early polling lead over then-incumbent Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat, until she veered sharply to the right, alienating key conservatives in the state.

    “She went on with friendly interviewers, got comfy and said damaging things,” Ralston said on Twitter. “Laxalt will only do Newsmax, OAN, Joecks TV and will keep making mistakes. That’s why GOPers here are worried.”

    Laxalt is the grandson of Paul Laxalt, a Nevada Republican legend who served both as governor and in the U.S. Senate. His biological father, as he revealed less than 10 years ago, was former Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican and close ally of Ronald Reagan, who had an extramarital relationship with Laxalt’s mother when she worked on Capitol Hill. Laxalt served one term as Nevada attorney general and ran for governor in 2018, losing to Democrat Steve Sisolak despite Trump’s endorsement. He later served as co-chair of Trump’s 2020 campaign.

    “Adam Laxalt led Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and now he’s running the same Big Lie playbook for his 2022 Senate campaign,” said Andy Orellana, a spokesperson for Nevada Democratic Victory, which is working to re-elect Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, who would be Laxalt’s opponent in the 2022 general election. “He knows he can’t win on the issues, so Laxalt is pushing frivolous preemptive lawsuits in an effort to limit Nevadans’ voting rights and potentially overturn the election when he loses.”

    Laxalt led multiple lawsuits on behalf of Trump’s campaign, leading the Las Vegas Sun editorial board to dub him the “Nevada version of Rudy Giuliani.”

    Laxalt insisted in the interview with Root that the problem with those lawsuits was not that the campaign’s failed to produce any evidence of fraud but only that that the suits were not filed in time.

    “There’s no question that, unfortunately, a lot of the lawsuits and a lot of the attention spent on Election Day operations just came too late,” he said.

    In fact, Laxalt filed his first failed challenge of the 2020 vote before Election Day, seeking to stop the count of mail-in ballots in Clark County, which includes Las Vegas and is home to three-quarters of Nevada’s population. After Trump’s defeat, Laxalt repeatedly pushed conspiracy theories about widespread voter fraud, without provide any actual evidence.

    “I’m telling you, there are improper votes,” he insisted at the time. “We don’t know if it’s 2,000, 10,000 or 40,000. I believe it is in the thousands.”

    Laxalt also pushed a claim that more than 3,000 non-residents had voted by mail in the 2020 Nevada election. Trump allies filed a lawsuit over the claim — but then dropped them after it became clear that many of the ballots Laxalt described were linked to military post office boxes overseas or locations around the country where military personnel are stationed, suggesting they were legally cast by troops and their family members.

    Laxalt filed a post-election lawsuit alleging widespread voting irregularities and asking a court to overturn Biden’s victory and declare Trump the winner. A judge in Carson City, the state capital, rejected the challenge, writing that the campaign’s evidence had “little to no value” and “did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, for any other improper or illegal reason.” Trump’s campaign appealed the decision, arguing that the court did not take into account “expert” testimony provided by the campaign. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected that challenge, writing that the campaign failed to identify any “unsupported factual findings” in the earlier ruling.

    “Last time Laxalt (and other anti-voter allies) pushed lies like this, they lost. Again and again,” the States United Democracy Center, a nonpartisan group that supports fair and secure elections, said on Twitter in response to Laxalt’s latest lawsuit threat. “The fight is so far from over. Lies about election integrity are spreading past the 2020 presidential election.”

    In fact, Biden won Nevada by more than 33,000 votes — making Laxalt’s unsupported claims about non-resident voting irrelevant — and the results were certified by the state Supreme Court. Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske launched an investigation into voter fraud allegations that found no evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities.

    “While the NVGOP raises policy concerns about the integrity of mail-in voting, automatic voter registration, and same-day voter registration, these concerns do not amount to evidentiary support for the contention that the 2020 general election was plagued by widespread voter fraud,” she wrote in a letter to the state Republican Party in April — after the party censured her for refusing to support the false claims of election fraud that have seemingly become GOP doctrine.

    But the absence of evidence has apparently done little to assuage Laxalt as the state’s Republican Party continues to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from its baseless fraud claims. Laxalt’s campaign did not respond to questions from Salon.

    In a statement to the AP, Laxalt declined to specify what kind of lawsuits he believes woiuld “tighten up the election” or to say whether he would accept the election results if he loses. But criticized the Democratic-led state legislature for passing a bill to send mail-in ballots to every registered voter.

    “Without a single Republican vote, Democrats radically changed the election rules in the final stretch of last year’s campaign and many voters lost confidence in the system as a result,” he told the outlet. “Their partisan transformation of Nevada’s system handed election officials an untested process that generated over 750,000 mail-in votes, unclean voter rolls, loose ballots and virtually no signature verification. Nevadans have a right to more transparency and voters deserve confidence in the accuracy of election results, and I will proudly fight for them.”

    Asked about the former attorney general’s argument, a spokesperson for Cegavske told Salon that the secretary of state is “not commenting on Mr. Laxalt’s concerns beyond what she has been saying all along – that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.”

    Laxalt later bragged on Twitter that his promise to attack the 2022 election in advance “seems to be triggering the media” after it was reported by Nevada outlets. “I stand by what I said on Wayne Allen Root’s [sic] show,” he said, insisting that he simply wants “free” and “secure” elections.

    “In fact, Laxalt is the one threatening to undermine secure and fair elections,” argued Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent. “Indeed, as this demonstrates, for Trumpist politicians, the refusal to commit to respecting legitimate election losses is now a badge of honor.”

    Laxalt expects to face off against Cortez Masto next November, though he still has to get past a Republican primary that is nine months away. Democrats have accused him of preemptively trying to undermine democracy.

    “Laxalt knows he can’t defend his record of pushing Trump’s interests and those of his special interest donors over hardworking Nevadans, so 14 months before the election he’s already plotting to revive the Trump playbook — threatening self-serving lawsuits in an effort to make it harder for Nevadans to vote,” Jazmin Vargas, a spokesperson for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a statement. “Nevadans see right through Laxalt’s corrupt and dishonest tactics and will reject him again in 2022.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The bad news is that taxes in America are tilted in favor of the rich. The best news is that we could be only weeks away from a tilt in favor of the middle class: the reforms President Biden is urging to help balance the Administration’s $3.5 trillion budget bill.

    The changes won’t be going as far as the president first proposed. Congress writes the laws, and House Democrats have already dialed back on Biden’s wish list.  Even so, the bill will almost certainly reflect a sharp shift in America’s priorities.

    As Biden himself puts it, “My tax policy is based on a simple proposition, which is to stop rewarding wealth and start rewarding work a little bit.”

    Republicans oppose everything, and a few Democrats have differences as well. Here’s a quick rundown of some major items as legislators continue to shape the final bill.

    A cut in the top marginal rate was part of Trump’s 2017 tax giveaway. Biden wants the rate back where it was, at 39.6 percent. It would apply to taxable incomes above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples.

    The tax break on capital gains is a huge part of America’s tax handout to the haves. The current levy on long-term capital gains tops out at 20 percent, little more than half the top rate on income from work. Biden hoped to equalize those rates, but that hope is history.

    The Democratic-controlled Ways and Means Committee opted instead for a hike in the capital gains tax to 25 percent. Significantly, the new rate would apply to any gains realized after September 13—preventing any stock sell-offs to avoid the 25 percent rate. The Committee also recommended a 3 percent surcharge on taxable incomes above $5 million.

    Ending the carried interest loophole is another of Biden’s tax-fairness goals. Candidate Trump promised to do it, but President Trump reneged and let it stand: “a tax dodge for wealthy private equity and hedge fund managers,” allowing them to defer taxes and ultimately treat their income as lower-taxed capital gains.

    Bills are advancing in both the House and the Senate to do what Trump turned his back on. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has drafted the most extensive repeal: it doesn’t even include the Biden recommendation for a $400,000 income exclusion.

    A supporter of the Wyden bill, former BlackRock managing director Morris Pearl, describes carried interest as an “absurd, regressive loophole with no credible economic justification…that has allowed some of the wealthiest people in the country to cut their tax bill nearly in half.”

    Wealthy corporations have also been big winners in the tax-cut sweepstakes: Trump reduced the rate on corporate earnings from 35 percent all the way down to 21 percent. Biden was pushing for an increase to 28 percent—still less than it was before Trump—but he won’t be getting it.

    The current Democratic plan calls for graduated corporate rates, moving from 18 percent for incomes below $400,000 to 26.5 percent on incomes above $5 million. The benefit of the lower rates would phase out for firms with incomes over $10 million.

    Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) wants an even lower top rate. Nothing can pass if Manchin doesn’t come aboard (and every other Democrat as well). In other words, the numbers are still in flux.

    Liberals are happy enough with what’s in the bill, but deeply unhappy about what isn’t. Listen to Inequality.org: “Without significant changes…billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos will hardly pay a nickel more in taxes. And families like the Waltons…will continue to amass huge dynastic fortunes.”

    All the same, America could be on the verge of a seismic change in tax policy.  After decades of tax laws that disproportionately favor the rich, Biden is shifting the focus to the broad middle class.

    Instead of putting millions more into the pockets of millionaires, he intends to put billions more into the social safety net—into childcare and healthcare and education.

    President Kennedy, 1961: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” President Biden to America’s wealthy, 2021: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what your taxes can do for your country.”

    Congress willing, Biden’s message could be delivered within weeks.

    • This article first appeared at New York Daily News

    The post Biden: Tilt Taxes to the Middle Class first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A pickup truck is parked just two blocks from Ground Zero on September 10, 2021 in New York City.

    When 19 al-Qaeda hijackers flew four commercial airliners — one crashed following an attempt by heroic passengers to regain control, one plowed into the Pentagon and two rammed New York’s Twin Towers — it seemed the world sat glued to a million different TV screens. After the first report, I ran home as crowds stared at the news in bars, restaurants and bodegas. Reflected off those screens, it looked to me like New York City was filled with hundreds of burning towers.

    The surreal moment had a truth. September 11 was instantly split by political ideology into many 9/11s. But the one that ended up defining the past 20 years was the right wing’s version. “Never forget” may be the slogan, but the right “never forgot” 9/11 because it never remembered it correctly. The national trauma of Ground Zero became a call to fight. Since they do not see people of color as citizens or even human, the “war on terror” transformed into a war on democracy.

    The Two 9/11s

    Here in New York, smoke rose from Ground Zero, carrying the ash of over two thousand people into the sky, and grieving families lit candles near photos of loved ones, buried under a mountain of debris. On the left, 9/11 was partly understood as the inevitable blowback of U.S. imperialism. On the right — and in many cases, in the center — it was portrayed as an attack on “Western civilization.”

    Coming back from volunteering at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center where I helped organize relief supplies, I saw a man talking to a large crowd. “You can’t bomb the whole world,” he pointed above their heads, “and not expect it to come back at you.” Three months later, Seven Stories Press published 9-11 by Noam Chomsky, explaining the al-Qaeda attack as blowback from U.S. foreign policy. Chomsky said, “In much of the world the U.S. is regarded as the leading terrorist state.” In the pages, he cited U.S. state terrorism against Nicaragua, its support of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon that left 18,000 dead and the arms shipment to Turkey to slaughter Kurds. Chomsky explained 9/11 was caused by U.S. arming Islamic fundamentalists in the 1980s in order to create an “Afghan Trap” for the Soviet Union. When Osama bin Laden saw U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia, he sought to overthrow the client state to create a pure Islamic caliphate. In 2004, bin Laden released a video saying inspiration came from the U.S. backing Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. He said, “While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America.”

    After the Twin Towers fell, the far right’s version of 9/11 crystallized; the enemy was not fundamentalists but people of color and non-Christians whose existence undermined the U.S. from within. The motif of the “internal enemy” deepened the further right one went. Some on the right blamed 9/11 on its victims, implying that many marginalized New Yorkers deserved to die.

    “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, ‘you helped this happen,’” Rev. Jerry Falwell said on Pat Robertson’s show “The 700 Club” on September 13, 2001. Falwell saw terrified New Yorkers, covered in dust, through an ideological lens of Christian nationalism that made them into the “sinful” who caused this suffering.

    His vision differed only in degree from neo-Nazi reactions to 9/11, monitored by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracked respect for al-Qaeda. In one post, Rocky Suhayda of the American Nazi Party said, “It’s a DISGRACE that in a population of at least 150 MILLION ‘White/Aryan’ Americans … we provide so FEW that are willing to do the same” — essentially calling for neo-Nazis to commit similar acts of terrorism.

    For the settler-colonial complex, difference is danger, and enemies are everywhere. This type of thinking pervaded the right and center-right response to 9/11. It also led to Trump’s presidency. It led to the January 6 attempted coup at the Capitol. And it fuels the ongoing right-wing attempts to destroy democracy to save white supremacy.

    Circle the Wagons

    “Islam is peace,” President George W. Bush said. “These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent war and terror.” The speech took place at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., two weeks after al-Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people. The goal, according to the Bush administration, was to prevent vigilante violence against Muslim Americans and show what “compassionate conservativism” meant. On the ground, the FBI reported that in 2001, there were 481 hate crimes against Muslims, a wild spike compared to years before. Three people were killed. Many, many more were targeted, discriminated against in the workplace and in schools, and singled out for extra airport security. Racist violence not only targeted Muslims, but also racial and religious groups perceived to be Muslim.

    This violence made the red in the American flag look like blood. 9/11 did not cause new racism but released what existed under the surface. The United States is a settler-colonial nation in which European colonizers attempted to replace Indigenous people through genocide, and enslaved millions of Africans to create massive wealth. Murder cleared space to erect a permanent state and a racial vocabulary to justify the violence. Each generation inherited the mythology through popular culture. The common theme was that Anglo-Saxon America had to be safeguarded against threats.

    It’s in our language, like the phrase “circle the wagons” which comes from the seizing of Native land in the West by settlers who rode wagons and circled them when they faced resistance. It’s in Thomas Dixon’s 1902 book, The Leopard’s Spots, in which Black men are portrayed as animalistic brutes, and in the 2018 film, The Quiet Place, where dark snarling creatures hunt a white family. It’s in early American captivity narratives and Western film showing whelping, “bloodthirsty” Natives, a motif analyzed in Reel Injun. It’s in popular culture’s portrayal of Arabs as “savage” and Muslims as “terrorists” — from Aladdin to Iron Man. What one repeatedly sees in this mythology is the white American being portrayed as a victim of violence inflicted by people of color.

    The right-wing settler-colonial complex made 9/11 more than a tragedy — it was a trigger of paranoia. It hit a core and sensitive cultural trauma, defined by Ron Eyerman in his 2019 book Memory, Trauma, and Identity as “… a dramatic loss of identity and meaning, a tear in the social fabric, affecting a people who achieved some degree of cohesion.” Later, he explained that that trauma has to be “explained” through “public reflection” for later generations. The “tear in the social fabric” for the right was white bodies supposedly torn apart by Native people fighting the theft of their land, when outnumbered duringthe U.S.’s foundation. Added to that was the terror of enslaved Africans rising up in Nat Turner’s rebellion and in scores of smaller slave revolts. The settler colonial myth of people of color being violent to whites made 9/11 an existential crisis for conservatives, who continue to ignore how many working-class people of color died in the Twin Towers, like those memorialized in Puerto Rican poet Martin Espada’s poem “In Praise of Local 100.”

    In the years that followed, history seemed to conspire to heighten that anxiety. President Obama was elected. During the campaign, fringe far right conspiracy theorists said he was not born in Hawaii but Kenya, and was a secret Muslim. Republican voters told then-candidate Sen. John McCain that Obama palled with domestic terrorists and one woman said he was “Arab.” Media personality and next president Donald Trump took “Birtherism” to new heights, demanding Obama present a birth certificate, stoking racial animus until finally relenting.

    In the eyes of a colonial-settler mindset, Obama was the terrifying sign that whites would be “vulnerable” again and people of color would elect socialists to seize their property. Election night 2008 saw gun sales go off the charts. Over Obama’s two terms, pollster Cornell Belcher’s book, Black Man in the White House, tracked the rise of “racial aversion.” He said, “It was a predictable backlash to the first time the vast majority of whites — their political will did not have an outcome that they wanted.”

    Fear and loathing bubbled under the surface, until again, Trump came in the 2015 presidential campaign and blasted it through the megaphone of his mouth. He warned of “rapist” Mexicans and Muslims as a “Trojan Horse,” and called for a travel ban on Muslims. He recycled 9/11 to stoke red state rage, saying, “There were people that were cheering, in the other side of New Jersey where you have large Arab populations, they were cheering as the World Trade Center came down.” It was a lie. It was believed anyway, though, because the right wing truly sees itself as a hapless victim of history.

    The right’s use of 9/11 reached beyond Trump to the semi-intellectual sphere with Michael Anton’s essay “The Flight 93 Election” (referencing the plane where passengers fought the hijackers) in Claremont Review of Books. He warned that if Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election, Big Government would cannibalize civil society, open borders and flood the U.S. with hordes of “Third World foreigners” to lock in a permanent majority. (Unfortunately, Clinton’s agenda was in reality much more centrist.) Anton’s essay was a stylized take on the “white replacement” conspiracy found in the far right.

    Again, the colonial-settler complex. Again, the fear of being overtaken. Again, the panic that the Natives and foreigners are winning. It led to panic at the 2018 midterms, when the initial members of The Squad (Representatives Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) were told by a weakened Trump to “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” Trump came hard at Representative Omar, a Somali American and Muslim, with a video splicing footage of the burning Twin Towers with a speech she had given.

    And then Trump lost. Encouraged by the bitter ex-president and led to believe an election lost meant they lost America, known on the right as “white replacement” in which people of color outnumber whites and seize control. It is a nightmare fantasy that drove a ragtag coup was attempted on January 6, 2021. Officers were wounded. Wild-eyed right-wingers fought with police. For those who ransacked the Capitol and the many who supported them, it was the climactic battle of 9/11.

    Woke Empire

    Twenty years after September 11, President Joe Biden removed the last of the U.S. military from Afghanistan and the far right had an interesting reaction. The American far right praised the Taliban. On Telegram, an encrypted app used by neo-Nazis, cheers poured in for the Islamic fundamentalists as one post said, “If white men in the West had the same courage as the Taliban, we would not be ruled by Jews currently.” It is a similar sentiment to the one expressed by the far right when al-Qaeda first rammed planes in the towers and Rocky Suhayda said in response, “’White/Aryan’ Americans … we provide so FEW that are willing to do the same.” On the other side of the Atlantic, the European far right warned of an invasion of refugees from the collapse of the U.S. puppet government in Kabul.

    The far right praised terrorists while paramedics, firefighters, construction workers and military tunneled through a mountain of rubble to rescue desperate people on 9/11. They pulled survivors out. They breathed in toxic dust that destroyed lungs. Some died of cancer.

    They did that dangerous work in spirit of humanism. It is the same spirit that moved pilots and humanitarian workers to get fleeing Afghans onto planes as the Taliban closed in. It is the same spirit that drove the tireless work of activists over the past two decades. It is a vision that rejects the white-supremacy-structured foundation on which this country was built. The social movements that changed the face of the country ultimately make an appeal to our greater humanity, even if they begin with defending a specific racial group or gender or class. Racism still exists. The legacy of it is still seen today. But social movements are chipping away at that foundation, more and more each day.

    The far right hates what the U.S. is becoming. It is possessed by a settler-colonial vision to protect a purity that never existed. The rest of us, the vast majority, have to take the true lesson of 9/11, during the crises that will come — climate change, more attempted coups by Republicans, economic meltdowns — to do what the first responders did and keep risking ourselves to make sure everyone gets out alive.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) has panned Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for his disingenuous claims about preventing sexual assault made while defending the state’s dangerous abortion ban this week.

    As Texas’s abortion ban has faced fierce criticism from a multitude of angles over the past weeks, Abbott has doubled down on a dubious defense: he will supposedly work to end sexual assault in the state by “eliminat[ing] all rapists,” incarcerating them instead.

    Aside from the obvious paradox of this statement — how could the government punish an assailant before they assault someone? — critics have pointed out that the sentiment isn’t actually genuine. Abbott doesn’t want to end sexual assault, critics say, and if he did, he would take actual steps to address rape culture.

    “If Gov. Abbott is as ‘anti-rape’ as he claims, why doesn’t he just lead the Texas state legislature to pass a law for $10k bounties on people who engage in or aid sexual assault?” wrote Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter — a likely dig at the “bounty hunter” aspect of the new anti-abortion law the governor just signed. “Or is he opposed to that because it’s a slippery slope of vigilantism where men could be unjustly targeted?”

    The so-called “bounty hunter” system that allows any private citizen to sue anyone who aids a person in getting an abortion and win a reward of $10,000 or more is exceptionally cruel, as critics have pointed out. It not only creates a massive chilling effect on abortion providers in the state, but also encourages harassment and sets a dangerous precedent of vigilantism, as Ocasio-Cortez pointed out.

    Bounty hunting as a practice has a grim, dark history in the U.S., having been used to abduct Black people into slavery and, in modern times, used to terrorize people who cannot afford to pay off bail bonds. Companies that bounty hunt make millions while causing untold suffering to their targets and their families.

    As critics of the abortion ban have pointed out, Texas’s abortion ban will likely disproportionately affect non-white, LGBTQ and poor people, who may lack the resources to travel out of state to obtain an abortion. The disproportionate effect of the law hearkens back, then, to bounty hunting’s racist and discriminatory roots.

    Such a system for enforcing any law only enhances the carceral state. Though the Texas law doesn’t directly incriminate abortion providers or people who aid someone seeking an abortion, it creates punitive measures for these individuals. It adds to, rather than eliminates, rape culture, which is one of the reasons a person may seek an abortion in the first place.

    Abortions should not be subject to punitive measures to begin with, and the negative stigma around what is clearly a medical procedure created by anti-choice groups is part of what has led the U.S. down this sordid path. The Texas abortion ban is extremely restrictive, not allowing even victims of rape or incest to be exempted from the law, which makes it particularly inhumane. Not that there should be any shame — or for that matter, a prohibitive law — associated with seeking an abortion for any reason in the first place, abortion rights activists point out.

    “Still thinking about how Gov. Abbott’s message to survivors terrified of the bounties now on their heads is ‘I will end rape.’ No, he won’t. He and the GOP just gave abusers & coercive partners a powerful new tool to intimidate victims,” wrote Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday. “These GOP laws HELP abusers, not stop them.”

    “By allowing any person to financially destroy pregnant people on a whim, they knowingly handed over the keys of manipulation & control to people most likely to use it,” she continued. “Don’t let them feign ignorance about this. They know exactly what they’re doing. This is about fear & control.”

    The New York lawmaker also wrote that the real reason Republicans are seeking to outlaw abortion is their desire to take away people’s body autonomy.

    “Sexual assault is an abuse of power that attempts to seize sexual control over another person’s body,” wrote Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter. “Anti-choice laws are also an abuse of power that attempts to seize sexual control over people’s bodies en masse. And that’s one way rape culture informs anti-choice legislation.”

    “It’s not a coincidence that Texas is where GOP are testing new ways to retake sexual control via legislation,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “Texas had ‘anti-sodomy’ laws in place until 2003 (!) that made non-PIV sex illegal until the Supreme Court overturned it on the basis of Roe v. Wade’s right to privacy.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Texas Governor Greg Abbott speaks during a press conference on June 8, 2021 in Austin, Texas.

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s approval rating has dropped over the past months as he has led Republicans in the state to pursue and pass a number of restrictive and discriminatory laws over the summer.

    Polling done just before the abortion ban in the state took effect by the Texas Politics Project, run by the University of Texas at Austin, finds that Abbott’s approval rating went from a net even 44 percent approval and disaspproval in June, to a net negative in the group’s most recent poll. Now, 41 percent of people polled approve of the GOP governor’s job performance, while 50 percent disapprove.

    Abbot’s approval rating dropped with people across the partisan spectrum: from 8 percent to 6 percent among Democrats, 77 percent to 73 percent among Republicans and 41 percent to 30 percent among independents. According to the Texas Politics Project, Abbott’s approval rating is now the lowest it has been since he took office in 2015.

    Overall, the poll found that a majority of those polled think that Texas is going in the wrong direction. While only 35 percent of those polled believe the state is going in the right direction, 52 percent believe it’s on the wrong track.

    Part of the reason for Abbott’s declining approval rating and the pessimism over the state’s direction may be due to the pandemic, said the executive director of the Texas Politics Project. “This is really an eye-opener for us,” Jim Henson told KXAN.

    The poll found that Texans generally disapprove of Abbott’s handling of the pandemic, with his approval ratings on the issue reaching the lowest levels since the beginning of the pandemic in April 2020. Only 39 percent of those polled approved of how Abbott has handled the COVID pandemic in his state, while 53 percent disapproved.

    Over the past months, the Delta variant of COVID-19 has surged across Texas. Case rates in Texas and across the country appear to be flattening, but the state has some of the highest rates for infections and deaths. Texas also has a relatively low vaccination rate, with only 48 percent of adults fully vaccinated to date.

    Part of the reason for the high case counts, especially in recent weeks, is Abbott’s insistence in not taking the necessary measures to stop the spread of the virus. In fact, he has moved against the recommendations of public health experts and ordered a ban on mask mandates from government entities, which has almost certainly contributed to a surge in cases among children as schools have returned to in-person classes.

    The mask mandate ban is also unpopular, according to the Texas Politics Project poll. Forty-one percent of those polled support it, while 45 percent are opposed.

    Though the poll was conducted before the state’s abortion ban went into effect, Texas Republicans have been working for months to suppress voters and implement other radical right-wing measures across the state.

    Republicans’ recent voter suppression bill, for instance, makes it harder for Black and brown people and people with disabilities to vote. The GOP has also been working on a number of bigoted anti-trans laws aimed at making it harder for transgender children and adults to survive in the state.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People display signs during the Georgetown to Austin March for Democracy rally on July 31, 2021 in Austin, Texas.

    While the big news from Texas this week was about the Supreme Court upholding the state’s ban on essentially all abortions in the state, a number of other restrictive laws that advance a far right Republican agenda also went into effect the same day.

    A total of 666 new laws were rolled out on Wednesday. Many of them, if they had been implemented individually, would have raised the alarm for Democrats and progressives. One law, for instance, criminalizes homelessness by disallowing people without homes from camping in a public location, making the act a misdemeanor with a $500 fine. Another law will make it illegal for people to hire workers for sex, which critics say will only exacerbate dangerous conditions for sex workers.

    Many of the laws that went into effect on September 1 were a direct backlash against the Movement for Black Lives that gained momentum across the country over the past year, along with the general movement for racial justice. One bill will create financial penalties for medium to large municipalities that decline their police departments’ budgets yearly.

    Another bill that Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed in June bans the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 schools. The scholarly theory, deliberately misinterpreted and politicized by the GOP, is not taught in grade schools. However, the intent of the law is to discourage educators from teaching American history without a white supremacist lens or talking about race in school. It bars teachers from giving “deference” to either side of a conflict while teaching about historical events.

    One bill, which again appears to be a backlash against last year’s mass uprisings for racial justice, makes it a felony for protestors to block a road while protesting. This will lead to harsher penalties for left-wing protesters who already face disproportionate punishment and violence from police when they demonstrate.

    A law that bans establishments from requiring a COVID-19 vaccine before entry also went into effect on Wednesday after having been signed by Abbott earlier this year. The punishment for requiring vaccinations is especially harsh on businesses: a business could be denied state contracts or even lose their license if they are found requiring customers to be vaccinated.

    And then, of course, Texas also implemented a law that essentially overturns Roe v. Wade in the state, outlawing abortions at a point so early in the pregnancy that most people don’t even realize that they are pregnant. It will do untold damage to the millions of people in the state that it affects — especially low-income people who don’t have the wherewithal to go out of state to seek abortion care

    Texas Republicans are working on yet more restrictive laws to come, many of them advancing a radical authoritarian agenda.

    Abbott called the current special legislative session just so Republicans could pass a number of radical bills that the legislature wasn’t able to pass during the regular session. One is a bill aimed at making it harder for non-white people and people with disabilities to vote. The legislature passed the bill Tuesday, and Abbott has pledged to sign it.

    Unsatisfied with just one bill scaring teachers from talking about race in schools, Republican legislators in the special session are advancing yet another supposed critical race theory bill that would remove required civil rights teachings from the curriculum, including writings from Martin Luther King, Jr. and lessons about slavery, white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan being “morally wrong.”

    Republicans are also hoping to pass a slate of hateful anti-trans bills that would limit health care access for transgender youth, bar them from participating in sports, and more. The Texas GOP is following a wave of anti-trans laws being passed by Republicans across the country.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Susan Collins listens during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on July 20, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    In a 2018 speech announcing her decisive vote in favor of confirming right-wing judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine insisted — despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary — that he would value legal precedent and not support efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    But less than three years later, Kavanaugh effectively did just that by joining four of his fellow conservative justices late Wednesday in voting to leave in place Texas’ six-week abortion ban, the most restrictive in the nation. While the court’s 5-4 majority claimed in a brief unsigned order that its decision “is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’ law,” analysts argued that the conservative justices’ move guts Roe v. Wade “under the cover of a procedural punt.”

    In the weeks ahead of her vote to confirm Kavanaugh — a Trump nominee who was accused of sexual assault — Collins repeatedly expressed her belief that the judge “reveres our Constitution” and would not approve of overturning Roe, a 1973 decision that established abortion as a constitutional right.

    A compilation of Collins’ remarks posted online in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Wednesday order offers a glimpse at some of the Maine senator’s past comments touting Kavanaugh’s expressed commitment to keeping Roe intact:

    Marie Follayttar, director of Mainers for Accountable Leadership, told Common Dreams on Thursday that Collins “will forever be the U.S. senator who gaslit a nation and her constituents and voted to install Brett Kavanaugh, who cast a vote against a woman’s right to an abortion.”

    “This is Susan Collins’ court and her legacy,” said Follayttar. “Collins told us that Kavanaugh would respect precedent. Two hundred and thirty Maine attorneys wrote her that Kavanaugh would ‘cast the fifth vote, making a majority, to erode or eliminate federal protections for a woman’s right to choose.’”

    “We failed to defeat Susan Collins at the ballot box, but we will succeed in making sure her role in overturning Roe vs. Wade is remembered,” she continued. “It’s incumbent on the Biden administration and Democratic leadership to expand the court, abolish the filibuster, and protect our right to an abortion. Anything less is unacceptable.”

    The Texas law that the Supreme Court opted to uphold with its dead-of-night order empowers private individuals to sue abortion providers and anyone who “aids and abets” patients attempting to obtain the procedure after around six weeks of a pregnancy. Texas Republicans deliberately crafted the law — which amounts to a near-total ban on abortions in the state — to shield it from legal challenges, a maneuver that other GOP-controlled states are now likely to replicate.

    Slate court reporter Mark Joseph Stern wrote early Thursday that “although the majority did not say these words exactly, the upshot of Wednesday’s decision is undeniable: The Supreme Court has abandoned the constitutional right to abortion. Roe is no longer good law.”

    “In defending her vote to confirm him to the bench, Republican Sen. Susan Collins said Kavanaugh believed that precedent was ‘not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked,’” Stern noted. “Now Kavanaugh has allowed Texas to overturn Roe, a nearly half-century-old precedent. He took less than three years to prove her wrong.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Demonstrators are gathered outside of the Texas State Capitol during a voting rights rally on the first day of the 87th Legislature's special session on July 8, 2021 in Austin, Texas.

    Despite weeks of protest by Democrats in the state, Texas Republicans succeeded this week in passing their sweeping voter suppression law, which will make it harder for voters with disabilities and non-white voters in the state to cast a balllot. It now goes to Gov. Greg Abbott, who has vowed to sign it.

    The bill has long been decried by Democrats and advocates as a push by Republicans after the 2020 election to draw lines between who is and isn’t allowed to vote. It takes aim at measures that have historically driven turnout from Black and Latinx voters and other disenfranchised groups.

    The bill, S.B.1, outlaws drive-through voting, for instance — a method of voting widely used by non-white voters to cast a ballot last year. Drive-through voting, which some counties had rolled out for the 2020 election, was a popular method, with about 1 in 10 early voters in Harris County casting their ballot that way.

    Harris County, the state’s most populous county, had also implemented a 24-hour early voting program that officials offered for one day. Republicans also outlawed 24-hour voting in their bill, taking special issue with Harris county’s methods to increase turnout — perhaps partly because the county voted for President Joe Biden by a margin of nearly 30 points in 2020.

    The Texas GOP is also creating hurdles for disabled people to vote. Some people with disabilities need another person to assist them in filling out a ballot. But the new bill will create an application process for people assisting others in voting and anyone assisting a disabled voter could potentially face criminal penalties if they perform a misstep.

    S.B.1 contains a wide swath of other restrictions as well. For example, it makes it a felony for election officials to send out unsolicited mail-in ballot applications — another direct response to a Harris County initiative — and calls for stricter voter ID requirements for voting by mail. Further, the bill empowers partisan poll watchers who could intimidate voters when they go to cast a ballot and creates a monthly review system to check voter rolls for noncitizens. Though there are few to no documented cases of noncitizens voting in Texas, it did not stop Donald Trump from propagating the lie that it was a widespread problem.

    Democratic lawmakers in Texas had fled the state for over a month to deny the legislature quorum and block the bill. But enough lawmakers returned after Republicans voted to threaten them with arrest warrants for the GOP’s marquee bill to pass.

    Advocates, journalists and Democrats decried the passage of S.B.1. “The Texas legislature just passed its egregious voter suppression bill,” tweeted University of California, Berkeley professor and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. “Meanwhile, voting rights legislation languishes in the Senate because [Senators Joe] Manchin and [Kyrsten] Sinema refuse to work around the filibuster. This is how democracy dies.”

    Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo vowed to fight the legislation. “The voter suppression bill has passed the legislature in Texas. We won’t give up now. We will fight this in court,” she wrote on Twitter. “And we will work relentlessly so voters in Harris County, from both parties, can cast a ballot despite these shameless suppression efforts.”

    Abbott, a Republican, said in a statement shortly after the bill was passed that he is planning to sign S.B.1 into law, citing spurious concerns about so-called election integrity. Republicans have offered a variety of excuses to implement such widespread voting restrictions in what was already one of the hardest states in which to cast a vote.

    But the Texas GOP’s intentions, much like the intentions of Republicans across the country trying to implement similar restrictions, are transparent: They want to make it harder to vote, especially for populations that they perceive to be Democrats, so that they never lose an election again.

    After failing to manipulate and then overturn the 2020 election — including attempting to cover up a violent attempted coup — Republicans have all but outright said that their goal is to ensure Republican wins in presidential and down ballot elections.

    This statement by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) last year is just one example of countless others made by Republicans across the U.S.: “If we don’t do something about voting by mail, we’re going to lose the ability to elect a Republican in this country.”

    It’s not just voter restrictions that Republicans are pushing, however. Texas Republicans are prepared to pull off yet another gerrymandering session that will turn the tides even further in their favor, after having pulled off an extremely bold partisan gerrymandering map 10 years ago.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) (C) joined by Rep. Jim Banks (R-Indiana) (L) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) speaks a news conference on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to reject two of Leader McCarthy’s selected members from serving on the committee investigating the January 6th riots on July 21, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

    House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) on Tuesday may have broken the law when he issued a threat to telecommunications companies that comply with a request by the January 6 committee to preserve and potentially turn over call records relating to the attack, including those of members of Congress.

    McCarthy called out Democrats like January 6 committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), claiming that the committee’s request was an attempt to “strong-arm” communications companies.

    He also dubiously claimed that it would be illegal for the companies to comply with the government request, leaving them with a threat. “[A] Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law,” he wrote. His office has failed to produce a specific law that the companies’ compliance would violate.

    Legal experts disagree with McCarthy’s claim. CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen said Wednesday that “no, there is no law” that the telecommunications companies would be breaking. In fact, Eisen said, it would be illegal if the telecommunications companies destroyed the records or refused to turn them over, as McCarthy suggested they do.

    “This is absolutely unjustified by [the] law and it raises serious questions under the House ethics rules,” Eisen said. “It meets the elements of obstruction. It’s a threat. It’s an attempt to stop them, through that threat, from turning over documents. It’s self-motivated, it’s corrupt. McCarthy is worried about what may be in those records on him.”

    Democrats are also alarmed about McCarthy’s threat. “I see it as clear obstruction of justice,” Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-California) told The Washington Post. Swalwell said that officials should consider referring McCarthy’s threat to the Department of Justice. “He’s telling the telecommunications companies to not honor a lawful subpoena, or there could be some penalty down the line,” Swalwell continued.

    While it is known that McCarthy had a call with President Donald Trump on January 6, there is little information on the content of that call. And though nearly eight months have passed since the attack, McCarthy has remained guarded about what he discussed with Trump that day.

    The records, which the committee began seeking last week, may shine a light on his fellow Republicans lawmakers too. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) also had a phone call with Trump that day; other lawmakers like Representatives Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) have been accused of collaborating with members of the far right in planning the attack.

    A spokesperson for the committee said that the group is not fazed by McCarthy’s threat. “The Select Committee is investigating the violent attack on the Capitol and attempt to overturn the results of last year’s election,” the spokesperson said in a statement, per Politico. “We’ve asked companies not to destroy records that may help answer questions for the American people. The committee’s efforts won’t be deterred by those who want to whitewash or cover up the events of January 6th, or obstruct our investigation.”

    Republicans have spent the last several months downplaying the violent attempt — which resulted in the death of seven people — to get Congress to reinstate Trump against the will of the voters. The party’s motivations, meanwhile, have remained relatively clear: to obstruct the investigation by every means possible. Trump last week also tried to prevent communications logs related to January 6 from coming out after the committee requested documents from the White House.

    Earlier this year, Republicans struck down a bill that would have created a bipartisan January 6 commission, even after Democrats had made several concessions to get them on board. Then, McCarthy attempted to sabotage the House committee, picking questionable figures like avid Trump supporter Rep. Jordan who was fully behind the attempt to overthrow the election results to investigate the attack.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Mike Rogers stands in front of a u.s. flag

    Just as the United States completed its troop withdrawal from Afghanistan on Monday after two decades of war and occupation, House Republicans announced plans to push for a $25 billion increase in annual military spending — a proposal that progressive lawmakers and advocacy groups swiftly rejected.

    Led by Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, the GOP intends to pursue a National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) amendment that would add $25 billion to President Joe Biden’s $753 billion topline military spending request for Fiscal Year 2022.

    The House Armed Services panel — which is awash in donations from weapons makers and other major industry players — is expected to begin marking up Biden’s request on Wednesday.

    “Rogers’ amendment would dole out $15 billion to address a spate of military unfunded priorities that weren’t included in the Pentagon’s budget request,” Politico reported Monday. “It would add $9.8 billion to weapons procurement accounts, including money for four more Navy ships, more planes and helicopters for the Navy, Marine Corps, and National Guard, and upgraded Army combat vehicles.”

    Approval of the GOP’s amendment would bring the House version of the NDAA — a sprawling annual defense policy bill that typically passes with overwhelming bipartisan support — into line with the Senate’s. Last month, as Common Dreams reported, the Senate Armed Services Committee agreed to pile $25 billion onto Biden’s proposal, which already calls for an increase over Trump-era Pentagon spending levels.

    The House GOP’s amendment would bring total U.S. military spending for FY2022 to $778 billion, a figure that progressives immediately condemned as unacceptable.

    “They want billions more for war even as we withdraw from Afghanistan,” tweeted Public Citizen, a government watchdog group. “We have to stop this amendment.”

    Progressive members of Congress, meanwhile, are calling on the House Armed Services Committee to block any effort to increase U.S. military spending beyond the level that Biden proposed in April.

    In a letter sent Monday to Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the hawkish chair of the committee, Reps. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), and 25 other House Democrats argued that “at a time when America’s largest national security threat is a global pandemic, our spending priorities should embrace efforts such as increased Covid vaccination efforts abroad instead of continually increased military spending.”

    “Surpassing the president’s request by such a large and unwarranted amount should not be the starting position of the House Armed Services Committee, particularly when current defense spending levels should already be reduced,” the lawmakers wrote. “America spends more on its military than the next 11 largest defense-spending nations combined. This will remain true if the president’s budget request were enacted, and the ratio will only increase under the Senate’s proposal.”

    The latest round of congressional debate over Pentagon spending came as the final U.S. military plane departed Kabul’s international airport on Monday, marking the close of a war and occupation that killed 241,000 people — including more than 47,000 Afghan civilians — and cost the U.S. $2.3 trillion. But while the U.S. may no longer have a troop presence in Afghanistan, military operations such as drone strikes are expected to continue.

    “As we watch the tragic humanitarian situation unfold in Afghanistan, we must reevaluate our priorities when it comes to cutting the bloated defense budget that has enabled 40 years of blank-check wars around the globe,” Lee, the only member of Congress to vote against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, said in a statement Monday. “Despite trillions of dollars poured into our endless military spending, this budget has failed to meet the greatest threats that our nation and our world faces today, including the Covid-19 pandemic, the climate crisis, and the needs of 140 million people living in poverty.”

    “Now is the time to shift our investments away from endless wars and toward addressing human needs,” Lee added.

    In an analysis released earlier this month, Lindsay Koshgarian of the National Priorities Project estimated that the roughly $19 billion the Pentagon budgeted for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan in 2020 alone would be enough to fund initial resettlement costs for 1.2 million refugees.

    “We’d face even lower costs to help resettle Afghans in countries closer to home — all the more reason after 20 years of war to step up with some serious resources and get it done,” Koshgarian wrote. “After twenty years, we owe the Afghan people at least that much.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Trucks drive past leaning power lines and flaming smokestacks spewing black smoke into the air

    It is an understatement to say there is a lot going on right now. The two biggest stories over the weekend were the winding up of the dangerous airlift out of Afghanistan and the arrival of an epic hurricane hitting the Gulf Coast on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

    Now is a dangerous time — but judging from the news coverage, I don’t think we’ve fully grasped just how much danger Americans are actually in.

    In a number of states, this latest COVID-19 surge, driven by the lethal Delta variant, has now surpassed the deadly surge of last winter. In two hard-hit states, the massive hurricane is coinciding with an equally massive surge in hospitalizations, making for an extremely volatile situation.

    According to LAIlluminator, which covers Louisiana state and local government, hospitals have been at capacity for weeks, as have all the other hospitals throughout the region, causing the authorities to make the frightening decision not to evacuate patients. There was nowhere for them to go. Temporary shelters had to be kept at lower numbers because of the COVID risk and nursing homes residents who would normally be transferred to hospitals due to serious medical conditions were told to shelter in place.

    The Illuminator reports that while Louisiana has had a rough go with this round of COVID, it was thought to be turning the corner last week. On Friday COVID hospitalization was below 2,700. That is 300 fewer than the week before but the positivity rate is still very high and people not able to follow precautions during the emergency will cause more of the virus to circulate, likely leading to another surge. Nobody knows what will happen to the inevitable victims of injuries and accidents in the aftermath.

    Louisiana’s Democratic governor, John Bel Edwards, reintroduced an indoor mask mandate weeks ago and has been exhorting people to get vaccinated but many of his rural constituents have refused to comply. The state has only a 40% vaccination rate, much lower than the national average. Like many others, they managed to get most elderly patients the shot, but younger folks just haven’t seen the need. The cultural and political pressure among Republicans in the state to defy the health professionals, and their Democratic governor, is enormous.

    The Mississippi coast took a battering from the hurricane as well, but its COVID surge is far more life-threatening to many more people in the state. The New York Times reported that Mississippi was “uniquely unprepared” for this latest onslaught of COVID patients:

    The state has fewer active physicians per capita than any other. Five rural hospitals have closed in the past decade, and 35 more are at imminent risk of closing, according to an assessment from a nonprofit health care quality agency. There are 2,000 fewer nurses in Mississippi today than there were at the beginning of the year, according to the state hospital association.

    The Times characterizes this as a combination of “poverty and politics” but really, it’s just politics — that’s what’s at the heart of the poverty and everything else.

    The state is never very generous when it comes to benefits, which they tend to see as going to “the wrong people” (if you know what I mean). But by rejecting the Medicaid expansion that came with the Affordable Care Act, they willfully deprived themselves of the money that would have allowed them to alleviate many of the current deficiencies in their system. And Mississippi’s Republican governor has basically given up, the Mississippi Free Press reports:

    After Mississippi became the world’s No. 1 hotspot for COVID-19, Gov. Tate Reeves told attendees at a Republican Party fundraiser in Memphis, Tenn., on Thursday, Aug. 26, 2021, that Mississippians “are a little less scared” of COVID-19 than other Americans because most share Christian beliefs (about 70% of all Americans identify as Christian).

    “When you believe in eternal life—when you believe that living on this earth is but a blip on the screen, then you don’t have to be so scared of things,” Bill Dries reported the governor saying in the Daily Memphian.

    I’m no Biblical scholar but I do seem to recall something about the Lord helping those who help themselves.

    This summer’s Delta surge has hit all the states but has been particularly virulent in the Southern states, the epicenter of anti-vax activity.

    And yes, there are a number of reasons why people haven’t gotten vaccinated in the last few months when they’ve been (mostly) easily accessible, free and very effective. Many young people erroneously believe they aren’t in danger of serious illness and some people of color are just generally leery of government edicts to take vaccines because of America’s woeful history of using those populations for experimentation. But the largest cohort of people who are winding up in the hospital are those who are refusing for irrational political reasons. The vast majority of deaths could have been avoided if the victims had gotten vaccinated.

    And just as they did during the first surges, they are not only adamantly against vaccine mandates, they are protesting all mitigation measures such as requiring masks in schools despite the fact that children under 12 are unable to be vaccinated so there is also a surge of kids getting sick and being hospitalized. And following their leader, Donald Trump, they are still perversely willing to take dangerous, untried snake oil cures while refusing to take the vaccine which has been received by hundreds of millions of people all over the globe with only minor side effects.

    Even the COVID deaths of a spate of high-profile anti-mask protesters and flamboyantly anti-vax right-wing media stars don’t seem to have changed the minds of the hardest core, true believers. It seems that the only time any of them change their minds is when they are on their own deathbeds and it’s too late.

    There have been millions of words written about the American right-wing’s hostility to science over many decades. Cynical politicians in the pockets of wealthy interests have worked hard to exploit it. But this weekend has illustrated both the long and short-term threat of this insensate attitude. The ongoing rejection of the dangers of climate change and the resulting warming of ocean waters is fueling the new devastating pattern of monster storms that we are seeing more and more often. The hostility to public health measures and life-saving vaccines during this pandemic has extended this crisis to the point that we are now endangering children and killing thousands of people who didn’t have to die.

    In the states along the Gulf of Mexico this weekend two existential emergencies collided and it didn’t have to happen. It’s terrifying to contemplate but unless we are able to figure out a way to change the hearts and minds of the rigid and stubborn minority of science deniers in this country, this is just the beginning.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Texas Speaker of the House Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, gavels in the 87th Legislature's special session in the House chamber at the State Capitol on July 8, 2021 in Austin, Texas.

    Texas’s Speaker of the House warned representatives in the Texas State House on Thursday night not to use the word “racism” when debating the Republicans’ voter suppression bill..

    Speaker Dade Phelan, a Republican, started debate on the bill by saying “the chair would appreciate members not using the word ‘racism’ this afternoon,” according to the Houston Chronicle. He insisted that it was a matter of respect.

    Republican legislators in Texas have been objecting to claims that their voter suppression bill, or S.B. 1, is racist. The bill has been slammed by voting rights advocates and Democrats like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) as the “Jim Crow 2.0” for its prohibitive voting requirements and overtly racist voting restrictions.

    In April, the Houston Chronicle reported that GOP Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said, “you’re in essence calling us racist, and that will not stand,” in response to these Democratic criticisms of the bill’s racist effects.

    The chamber advanced the bill 79 to 37, with only one Republican voting no. It is expected to pass in a floor vote on Friday, after which it goes back to the Texas State Senate, where senators can pass the new bill or reconcile differences between a similar bill previously passed by the chamber.

    If passed, the bill would ban 24-hour and drive-through voting, voting options that have been championed as expanding access in nonwhite communities. It would make it harder for people with disabilities to vote by restricting the ability of those who help them turn in their ballots. And, among a slate of other restrictions, it would also bar local election officials from sending unsolicited mail-in ballot applications, with the aim of restricting mail-in voting.

    Texas Democrats had fled the legislature in July to block a special session in which Texas Republicans planned to pass the voter suppression bill, anti-trans laws, and more. In an effort to force a vote on the voter suppression law, Texas House Republicans earlier this month voted to arrest their Democratic counterparts if they didn’t return to the state.

    Democratic lawmakers pointed out the bill’s implicit and explicit racist effects in debate on Thursday night.

    “The courts have pointed out over and over and over again: intentional discrimination against African Americans, intentional discrimination against Latinos, intentional discrimination against people of color. These are not my words. These are three federal courts across this country making 10 findings of that intentional discrimination,” said Rep. Gina Hinojosa, a Democrat.

    Hinojosa was referencing past court rulings against Texas election law, including a 2012 ruling finding that Texas lawmakers didn’t comply with the Voting Rights Act when drawing district maps that cycle. “Intentional discrimination against people of a different race…” Hinojosa said. “Is that racism?”

    Phelan interjected, saying, “we can talk about racial impacts with this legislation without accusing members of this body of being racist.” Hinojosa pointed out that she hadn’t accused any one lawmaker as being racist.

    Democrats expressed frustration and anger over Phelan’s attempted ban on discussing racism in the chamber. “Wow. The Speaker just asked us to not use the word ‘racism’ during debate today,” wrote Democratic Rep. Erin Zwiener on Twitter. “SB 1 will harm the freedom to vote for all Texans, but it will disproportionately impact people of color. That’s racist, no matter how you dress it up. Period.”

    “One Republican has already filed an amendment to put the ‘Souls to the Polls’ provision that would limit black churches voting on Sunday morning back in the bill. It’s racist,” Zwiener continued. “Coddling R legislators who are uncomfortable about how this bill hurts people of color is not our job.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) listens at a press event following the House of Representatives vote on H.R. 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, at the U.S. Capitol on August 24, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

    The House passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act on Tuesday evening. The bill would empower nonwhite voters and enable the federal government to move against racial discrimination in voting.

    The bill, named for the late Rep. John Lewis, a Democrat from Georgia and civil rights advocate who died last year, passed the House 219 to 212 along party lines. It now goes to the Senate, where it stands an exceedingly slim chance of passing.

    Democrats and progressives have been pushing for the bill’s passage for years. If signed into law, it would restore and strengthen a rule shot down by conservative Supreme Court justices in 2013 that weakened protections from the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. Previously, jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting had to gain approval from the Justice Department if they were seeking to change their election rules, a process called preclearance.

    The Supreme Court shot down that part of the Voting Rights Act eight years ago when it ruled that the way that Congress was deciding which jurisdictions had to undergo preclearance was outdated. Law experts like Attorney General Merrick Garland argue that the original preclearance process was “enormously effective,” though the John Lewis Act would create updated rules for preclearance to fit with modern practices of discrimination.

    The bill also addresses another Supreme Court decision from earlier this year, from Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, that also severely weakened the section of the Voting Rights Act that limited states’ abilities to create racist voter suppression laws.

    Voting rights advocates have lauded the bill for its potential to help tamp down racist voter suppression in the election process and stem the tide of voter suppression laws being passed by Republicans across the country.

    But, partially because of that very potential, the bill stands a very low chance of gaining any Republican approval in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster — the outdated practice that progressives have called for abolishing.

    “The House passed the For the People Act AND the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) on Twitter. “We’re tackling the urgent voter suppression crisis happening across our nation. It’s time for the Senate to do the same. End the filibuster.”

    Other lawmakers called for the full passage of the For the People Act, or H.R.1, on top of the John Lewis Act to continue upholding voting rights in the U.S.

    “The House passed HR 4, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act — restoring key voting provisions undone by the Supreme Court,” tweeted Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-New York). “But the work continues. And it must continue in the form of HR 1’s passage to bring about a new era in our multiracial democracy.”

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) echoed that sentiment, saying “The House just passed HR 4, restoring the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But our work isn’t done. The Senate must also pass HR 1, which would enact automatic voter registration, vote-by-mail, and early voting in every state.”

    Both H.R.1 and H.R.4, however, face opposition not only from Republicans but also from Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), who has said that he is in favor of the John Lewis Act, but with caveats, which significantly weaken the bill. Manchin also said he is supportive of some parts of the For the People Act — but the parts he does not support happen to be the most significant ones, such as the campaign finance transparency proposals.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Pro-Pandemic protesters display signs against vaccines and social distancing measures

    Not too long ago, there was a time when Republicans insisted that they were against Big Government and wanted to push it down as much as possible to local control. They extolled the virtues of town councils, school boards and community commissions for being close to the people and, therefore, more responsive to the needs of their constituents. Government officials were neighbors and co-workers and friends so they had a better chance of truly understanding the issues people care about.

    But it was always a bit of a con since there were plenty of things they wanted the much-hated “Big Government” to do, such as dictate others’ personal behaviors and impose their religious beliefs on them. And they have been positively giddy about supporting a gigantic military even as they have lately pretended to be isolationists only interested in fortress America, which certainly doesn’t require the bloated military budget they rubber stamp without question. Nonetheless, the anti-tax activist Grover Norquist’s old saying that conservatives wanted to make the federal government small enough to “drown in the bathtub” was generally understood to mean that the national government should devolve to allow as much local control as possible.

    And then came the pandemic.

    From the beginning, governors of Republican states have done everything they could to undermine local leaders in their states, from public health officials to school boards to mayors, as they tried to battle this deadly virus by putting in place mitigation strategies to keep their constituents from dying. And it continues to this day. It started with former President Donald Trump, of course, when he turned the pandemic response into another ideological war back in the spring of 2020 to try to salvage his presidency. His only concern was that the economy would be roaring when it came time to vote in the fall so he sent a strong signal to his GOP allies that this would be the priority. They were happy to oblige.

    GOP governors quickly took up Trump’s negative message about masks and public health warnings about super-spreader events were boldly disregarded. Some quickly filed lawsuits, later upheld by the Supreme Court, which said there could be no restrictions on religious gatherings. With some exceptions, the GOP leadership opportunistically reacted to the pandemic as if it were a liberal plot to deprive them of their freedoms as a political strategy.

    Trump eventually left office presiding over the third surge of the virus and it was the worst by far. Obsessed as he was with The Big Lie and having survived COVID himself, he was no longer interested despite the fact that the vaccines were coming online and had the potential to end the pandemic in America in a matter of months. He made some flaccid attempts to claim credit for the development of the vaccines but didn’t even bother to make it public that he and his family had received their shots until months later. Trump’s legacy on the pandemic is solid: he was a massive failure.

    President Biden, on the other hand, assumed office and focused immediately on the vaccine rollout, getting hundreds of millions of people vaccinated in record time, sending FEMA and the military around the country to help out, and pushing the states in every way possible to make the vaccines accessible. For a few months, it looked as if we might have gotten through the worst of it and could all go back to living our lives as before. Unfortunately, all that Republican caterwauling about the mitigation strategies had been extended to the vaccines and tens of millions of GOP voters have refused to save their own lives and the lives of those around them out of a determination to believe conspiracy theories, misinformation and the not so subtle signals from the GOP elite.

    Now we are in what President Biden has called “the pandemic of the unvaccinated” with the Delta variant having swept the country and hospitalizing thousands of people just as we are confronting the prospect of sending kids back to school. Children under 12, who are unable to be vaccinated are at the mercy of these ideologically indoctrinated zealots who refuse to protect their own children and the children of others from this strain that is making many of them sick.

    The “mask wars” are back, this time with angry parents demanding that their kids not be required to protect themselves and others in crowded classrooms and defiant customers refusing to adhere to local mandates for masks inside public places. And while vaccinations have picked up in the last couple of weeks, there remain at least 70-80 million eligible people who are still not protected. According to a recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, Republicans make up the vast majority of people who refuse to get vaccinated, wear masks or otherwise accept the reality that we are dealing with a deadly virus. And they are acting out all over the country.

    And once again, GOP governors are coddling them by banning mask requirements in schools, vaccine mandates for employers and any other means of getting enough people vaccinated to stop the progress of this virus. Right-wing media is pushing snake oil cures like an anti-parasite treatment for horses and cows, as Tucker Carlson did last week on his highly-rated Fox News broadcast. (The FDA had to send out a warning that humans should not take this drug after numerous reports from poison control centers around the country.) The results are shocking.

    In Republican states, hospitals are filling up with unvaccinated COVID patients, many of them younger than 50. In Mississippi, they are putting patients in parking garages, and in Texas, they have to medevac aortic dissection victims to other states because they don’t have any ICU beds. Hundreds of patients are unable to find hospital beds. And local officials are having to battle their state governments in Texas, Florida and South Carolina to allow them to do something about it while in Arkansas and Tennessee, the Republican governors are fighting with their own GOP legislatures to allow local officials to enact life-saving regulations.

    This is just one more example of the rot at the heart of what we once called the conservative movement. They never cared about small government and local control. They just pretended to. When push comes to shove they are always ready to squash anyone who disagrees with them using any means necessary, all the while calling it “freedom.” If people die because of it, well, that’s just politics.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Bernie Sanders

    With both the Democrats’ policy priorities and the upcoming 2022 elections in mind, Sen. Bernie Sanders will travel next week to Republican districts in Indiana and Iowa to speak with voters about the $3.5 trillion spending plan that he’s hailed as the boldest federal budget proposal since the New Deal.

    The Vermont Independent will talk with constituents about how the spending plan, on which he led negotiations as the Senate Budget Committee chairman and which he and Democrats unveiled earlier this month, will improve the lives of working people across the country while demanding that wealthy households and corporations pay their fair share.

    The National Republican Senatorial Committee claimed Sanders’ leadership on the spending plan is proof of a “Socialist takeover of the Democrat Party.” The senator said Thursday that he believes voters across the political spectrum in Indiana and Iowa will find themselves agreeing with the Democrats’ plan for federal spending.

    “Within the next several months Congress will be voting on the most consequential piece of legislation for working people, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor since Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal of the 1930s,” Sanders said in a statement. “While it will have no Republican support in Washington, Democrats, Independents, and working-class Republicans all over the country support our plan to finally invest in the long-neglected needs of working families. I very much look forward to hearing from some of them.”

    The town halls will be held in West Lafayette, Indiana, on August 27 and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, on August 29.

    Cedar Rapids lies in Iowa’s 1st Congressional District, which was represented from 2018 until 2020 by moderate Democrat Abby Finkenauer, who lost her seat last year to Republican Ashley Hinson.

    Former President Donald Trump also increased his vote total in both districts between 2016 and 2020.

    The framework for the spending plan includes an expansion of Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing care; funding for a Civilian Climate Corps; an expansion of this year’s increased Child Tax Credit; subsidies to ensure no family pays more than 7% of their income for child care; paid family and medical leave; universal pre-K for three- and four-year-olds; and tuition-free community college.

    Recent polls by Quinnipiac University and the progressive think tank Data for Progress (pdf) have found that large majorities of Americans — between 62% and 66% — support the spending plan.

    The party will need all Democrats in the Senate to support the budget proposal in order to pass the spending plan through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) prepares for a news conference outside the Capitol on Thursday, July 29, 2021.

    Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) failed to disclose her husband’s large energy company earnings during her congressional campaign as required by law, according to a report by The Associated Press.

    Boebert’s husband made $478,000 last year and $460,000 in 2019 while consulting for Terra Energy Productions, according to the disclosure. The lawmaker, who filed the 2020 earnings this week, should have reported the income last year during her run for office, as campaign and congressional finance laws require lawmakers to disclose all sources of income, including investments.

    AP reported that, while there is no Terra Energy Productions in Colorado, there is a Houston, Texas-based company called Terra Energy Partners that claims to be “one of the largest producers of natural gas in Colorado.”

    The late disclosure raises ethical questions for transparency advocates.

    “Voters have a right to know what financial interest their elected officials might be beholden to,” Kedric Payne, Campaign Legal Center senior ethics director and former deputy chief counsel for the Office of Congressional Ethics, told The Washington Post. The Office of Congressional Ethics should investigate the lawmaker for what “could be [a] criminal” failure to disclose, if it was done intentionally.

    Boebert now serves on the House Natural Resources Committee, which oversees energy and land management in the U.S., including fossil fuel extraction inland and offshore. She has also introduced legislation that could have benefited her husband financially or professionally, as Terra Energy’s focus is on oil and gas exploration, according to its website.

    Since January, when Boebert was sworn in, she has introduced several pro-fossil fuel bills and made statements aimed at bolstering the industry or taking down its detractors, the American Independent reported.

    In her first month in office, the Colorado representative introduced a bill that would have barred the U.S. from reentering the 2015 Paris Agreement, a nonbinding international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    The next month, she introduced a bill that would keep the U.S. from banning oil and gas leasing on federal lands and reverse Joe Biden’s decision to axe the Keystone XL pipeline.

    Boebert criticized the Green New Deal after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) reintroduced the resolution earlier this year. In her statement, Boebert said that the proposal calls for a reduction in fossil fuel use that would throw the country into “a literal energy dark age.”

    Boebert is not the only lawmaker defending fossil fuels who has close ties to the industry. The oil and gas industry contributes millions to lawmakers, influencing Republicans and Democrats alike to continue legislating in their favor. The most recent and high profile example of this is the infrastructure bill, which was stripped of its climate provisions by lawmakers under the influence of oil giant Exxon.

    The Colorado Republican also faces scrutiny over other potentially illegal actions involving campaign funds, including questions from the Federal Election Commission over an “apparent personal use of thousands of dollars in campaign funds.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A unique but critical conversation on Israel and Palestine is taking place outside the traditional discourse of Israeli colonialism and the Palestinian quest for liberation. It is an awkward and difficult – but overdue – discussion concerning American Jews’ relation to Israel and their commitment to its Zionist ideology.

    For many years, Israel has conveniently dubbed Jews who do not support Israel, or worse, advocate Palestinian freedom, as ‘self-hating Jews’. This term, designated to describe dissident anti-Zionist Jews, is similar to the accusation of ‘antisemitism’ made against non-Jews, which includes Semitic Arabs, for daring to criticize Israel. This approach, however, is no longer as effective as it once was.

    Recent years have unequivocally demonstrated that there is a quiet anti-Israel rebellion within the American Jewish community. This rebellion has been brewing for long, but only fairly recently did numbers begin reflecting the rise of a new phenomenon where US Jews, especially younger generations, are openly dissenting from the typical Jewish conformity on Israel and supposedly undying love for Zionism.

    In the last decade or so, this new reality has sounded the alarm within various Zionist institutions, whether in the US or in Israel itself.

    Several opinion polls and surveys are all pointing to an inescapable conclusion that the emotional and political rapport between Israel and US Jews is rapidly weakening. A poll published by the Laszlo Strategies for Jerusalem U in August 2013, for example, concluded that 87 percent of American Jews over the age of 50 strongly agreed that “caring about Israel is a very important part of my being Jewish,” while only 66 percent of young Jews between the ages of 18 to 29 felt the same.

    Other polls reached similar conclusions, where the number of young Jews strongly supportive of Israel continues to decline. A particularly telling and important survey was that of the American Jewish Committee in June 2018. That was the time when the US-Israeli alliance reached its zenith under the administrations of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Though 77 percent of all Israelis approved of the US government’s handling of US-Israeli relations, only 34 percent of American Jews did. In fact, 57 percent of US Jews outright disapproved of Trump’s policies, which practically granted Israel all of its demands and wishes.

    The downward trajectory continued unabated. A May 2021 Pew research indicated that one in five US Jews believes that the US is “too supportive of Israel”. Those who hold such a belief, 22 percent of the US Jewish population, have doubled in number since an earlier poll released in 2013.

    Data gathering for the above poll, though released during the deadly Israeli onslaught on Gaza (May 10-21), was, in fact, conducted in 2019 and 2020. The numbers of unsupportive US Jews must have risen since then, as if there is a clear correlation between Israeli wars resulting in massive civilian casualties, and the ongoing split between US Jews and Israel.

    Libby Lenkinski, Vice President for public engagement at the New Israel Fund, told Rolling Stone magazine that she sees a “noticeable shift in American perception” on Palestine and Israel since the deadly Israeli war on Gaza in 2014, a war that killed over 2,200 Palestinians. For Lenkinski, US Jewish perception should follow an ethical paradigm. “It’s a moral issue. It’s right or wrong,” she said.

    Similar sentiments emerged after the May 2021 war, where over 260 Palestinians were killed. In a recent article, American Jewish writer, Marisa Kabas, explains the dilemma felt by many in the US Jewish community regarding Israel. “Because the conflict has so often been boiled down to a binary – you either support Israel or you support its destruction – for many of us it felt like a betrayal to even consider the other side.”  Because of the likes of Kabas and Lenkinski and numerous others, the ‘other side’ is finally visible, resulting in the obvious shift in American Jewish perception of and relations to Israel.

    While more space for dissenting US Jews is opening up, the discussion in Israel remains confined and is hardly concerned with ethics and morality.

    Recently, the understanding that Israel is losing the support of US Jews has been accepted by the country’s main political parties, with disagreement largely focused on who is to blame for this seismic shift. Netanyahu was often held responsible for making Israel a partisan American political issue through his alliance with Trump and the Republican Party, at the expense of Israel’s relation with the Democrats.

    However, the Netanyahu-Trump love affair was not as uncomplicated as Netanyahu’s critics would like to believe. Indeed, the idea of Israel has changed in American society. The notion that Israel is a supposedly vulnerable little state, facing existential threats by Arab enemies, which flourished in the past, has become almost entirely irrelevant. The new concept of Israel, which is Tel Aviv’s main selling point in America, is that of a biblical Israel, a place of prophecies and spiritual salvation, which appeals mostly to right-wing Evangelical Christian groups. Young US Jews, many of whom support the Black Lives Matter and even the Palestinian boycott movements, have little in common with Israel’s zealot American backers.

    Israel is now at a crossroads. It can only win back the support of US Jews if it behaves in such a way that is consistent with their moral frame of reference. Hence, it would have to end its military occupation, dismantle its apartheid regime and reverse its racist laws. Specifically, abandon Zionism altogether, or abandon US Jews in favor of complete reliance on the Evangelicals. In fact, some top Israeli officials are already advocating the latter.

    On May 9, former Israeli ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, argued that, since Evangelical Christians are the “backbone of Israel’s support in the United States”, Israel should prioritize their “passionate and unequivocal” backing of Israel over American Jews who are “disproportionately among our critics.”

    If Israel officially opts for this choice, perhaps with no other viable option, then a breakdown between Israel and US Jews becomes inevitable. As far as justice and freedom for the Palestinian people are concerned, that would be a good thing.

    The post The Quiet Rebellion: Why US Jews Turning against Israel is Good for Palestinians     first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A girl in a yellow shirt holds a sign reading "PROTECT OUR RIGHT TO VOTE" during an outdoor protest

    The United States saw unprecedented growth in diversity over the past decade as the white population declined for the first time in history, new census data showed on Thursday. But despite population growth among nonwhite and urban voters, which have been key Democratic voting blocs, Republicans are still expected to hold a decisive edge in the congressional redistricting process.

    The Census Bureau released data used by states to redraw congressional and legislative districts, showing that while the white non-Hispanic population declined by more than 8% amid the slowest national population growth the country has seen since the 1930s, the Hispanic, Black and Asian-American populations continued to grow. For the first time in U.S. history, the white population has fallen to below 60% of the total.

    “These changes reveal that the U.S. population is much more multiracial, and more racially and ethnically diverse, than what we measured in the past,” Nicholas Jones, the director of race, ethnicity, research and outreach for the Census Bureau’s Population Division, said during a news conference. He cautioned, however, that some of the changes may be the result of improvements the bureau has made to the survey.

    The population also continued to become more urbanized. A majority of counties in the U.S. (52%) saw population declines, particularly among rural counties with fewer than 10,000 people. The population growth over the past decade was “almost entirely” in metropolitan areas, said Marc Perry, senior demographer at the Census Bureau’s Population Division.

    Metro areas grew by 8.7% while micro areas grew by just 0.8% and the population in rural areas declined by 2.8%. All 10 of the biggest cities in the United States, led by New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, saw population growth.

    Perry highlighted the case of Texas, where the Hispanic population is now roughly equal to the number of non-Hispanic whites in the state, as a perfect example of the trend.

    “Parts of the Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, Midland and Odessa metro areas had population growth, whereas many of the state’s other counties had population declines,” he said.

    The Asian-American population grew the fastest over the last 10 years, rising by 35%. The Hispanic population increased by 23% and the Black population grew by 5.6%. Nearly half of all children in the country are nonwhite. The number of people reporting two or more races or “other race” also significantly increased, suggesting that some of the trends may be the result of changes to how respondents self-identify.

    It will take several weeks for states to sort through the data, which they will later use to draw new district maps. That process has frequently been described as politicians picking their own voters, rather than the other way around.

    It would be reasonable to conclude that a more diverse population that is increasingly concentrated in urban centers would give Democrats an edge over Republicans, whose base of voters has grown increasingly white and rural in recent election cycles. In theory, that would still be the case even as red states like Texas and Florida are set to gain congressional seats, while blue states like New York and California will lose seats, given that the population increases in Texas and Florida are largely in those states’ large metropolitan areas.

    But that’s not likely to be how it plays out in reality. Republicans have aggressively (and sometimes illegally) gerrymandered congressional districts in previous cycles, and hold total control over the redistricting process in 20 states, representing 187 congressional districts. Democrats have control of the process in 11 states, including just 84 districts. Other states have split governments or independent redistricting commissions, which offer some protection against partisan gerrymanders.

    Although the 2010 census showed similar trends to those seen in the new data, Republican gerrymanders allowed the party to hold decade-long majorities in many congressional delegations and state legislatures, even as Democrats began to consistently win larger shares of the vote. That has resulted in massive partisan gains for the GOP, according to a recent Associated Press analysis. Ohio Republicans have won 75% of the state’s congressional seats, for instance despite never winning more than 58% of the vote. “The Republican advantage in Michigan’s state House districts was so large after the GOP drew the maps that it could have played a role in determining control of the chamber in every election this past decade,” the AP reported.

    This cycle could be even more perilous for Democrats. Republicans aggressively sought to counter their presidential and Senate losses in 2020 by rolling out hundreds of bills to restrict voting access, especially in states where voters of color drove record-high turnout last year. Some Republican-led state legislatures are already looking to “crack” cities, where Democrats have typically won seats, by dividing them into multiple districts that also include far-flung suburban or rural areas, in hopes of guaranteeing further victories.

    Democrats have seen some success in lawsuits over overtly partisan gerrymanders, the Supreme Court in 2019 delivered a critical blow to that process, effectively barring federal courts from ruling on partisan gerrymanders.

    With Democrats holding just a five-seat majority in the House right now, it’s entirely possible Republicans could win control of the chamber in 2022 through gerrymandering alone. A recent study found that Republicans could gain up to 13 seats through gerrymandered districts in just four states: Florida, Texas, North Carolina and Georgia. That analysis did not include potential Democratic gains, such as in New York, where Democrats are likely to eliminate or flip a Republican seat for example. But opportunities for such Democratic pickups appear limited.

    Instead, Democrats have increasingly pushed to implement independent redistricting commissions to create fair maps, or, as in the case of Oregon, have cut deals with Republicans, offering an equal number of congressional seats in exchange for an end to relentless GOP obstruction in the state legislature.

    As a result, Democrats may have shot themselves in the foot: Republicans are ready and eager to redraw legislative maps aggressively, while their opponents seek to model good governance, perhaps at the expense of their own political fortunes. In fact, population trends showing migration flows from rural areas to urban centers, where Democrats typically predominate, could actually work against them in states like Michigan with independent redistricting panels, because Republican voters are more geographically dispersed.

    “Even if you’re not trying to gerrymander on behalf of Republicans,” Matt Grossmann, director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University, told the AP, “the fact that Democrats are concentrated in cities and in the inner-ring suburbs means that it is easier to accidentally gerrymander on behalf of Republicans.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) speaks on the bipartisan infrastructure bill during a press conference with fellow Republican senators at U.S. Capitol on August 04, 2021 in Washington, D.C.

    Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) is attempting to take conservatives’ latest culture war topics, ranging from spurious to dangerous, to Congress, announcing a number of amendments to the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion reconciliation package that he plans to introduce as the Senate takes up debate on the resolution.

    Hawley unveiled his planned amendments on Monday that were reflective of a far right extremist agenda. He includes proposals like barring critical race theory in federal diversity training, prohibiting the federal government from establishing universal pre-kindergarten, which Democrats have proposed, and restricting funding from schools taking steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

    Other amendments would promote “patriotic education” to “teach students to love America,” pull U.S. funding from the World Trade Organization and, ghoulishly, bar health care workers from providing gender affirming care for transgender people.

    The amendments, covering a wide swath of topics that many Republicans have taken up in state governments, are a show of the priorities on the right to endanger adults’ and children’s mental and physical health while indoctrinating children through barring the teaching of topics related to race and equity. They have little to do with the Democrats’ reconciliation bill, which is aimed at addressing the climate crisis, strengthening the safety net for Americans and expanding Medicare coverage.

    The proposals are especially ironic as Republicans have complained for months that the bipartisan bill is “not really an infrastructure bill,” as Hawley claimed last week. “This is a woke politics bill that is being paid for with hundreds of billions of dollars in pork-barrel spending,” he said, complaining, too, about the deficit that Republicans had a huge hand in creating.

    What Hawley was complaining about was a single line in the bill, which said that a program expanding broadband access for disadvantaged people couldn’t discriminate based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or otherwise. He implied that trans people shouldn’t be a protected class and went on to extrapolate that the infrastructure bill, which has already been watered down massively by Republicans, was a “far-left” bill with proposals that aren’t related to infrastructure.

    Besides the fact that the infrastructure bill is a far cry from what progressives and even Joe Biden himself have proposed, Hawley’s view of issues he thinks are politicized in the infrastructure bill is dwarfed by his own budget reconciliation amendments.

    Assuming that they were morally equal, proposing that all people should have an equal opportunity to access broadband assistance from the federal government is a much less consequential idea than disincentivizing schools from preventing the spread of COVID-19 — and that’s just one of his proposals.

    But, while the goal of equal access within one part of the infrastructure bill is arguably a noble cause, Hawley’s proposals have the potential to be incredibly destructive. Right now, as schools reopen and children under 12 still can’t be vaccinated, children account for 15 percent of COVID cases in the U.S., a recent report has found. And adopting a law barring trans people from accessing health care, for instance, would have monumentally detrimental consequences for trans people and their families and is a direct attack on the LGBTQ community’s health.

    Further, Hawley’s amendments have less to do with the reconciliation package than the clauses in the bipartisan bill he says aren’t related to infrastructure. While he complained about climate provisions in the infrastructure bill — of which there are very few — many of his proposals have almost nothing to do with the budget reconciliation process. Climate, as advocates have pointed out time and again, has everything to do with infrastructure, while promoting a “patriotic education” has nothing to do with the federal budget.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.